THE WANGAPEKA LAND SALES.

Colonist, Volume XIII, Issue 1278, 24 December 1869, Page 4

THE WANGAPEKA LAND SALES.

OFFICIAL ENQUIRY.

TUESDAY, Deoembeb 20. [Continued erom Page B.] Mr. Domett : There must be a construction put on tlio offer of a bonus, and the meaning of that was, that if upwards of fifty miners worked there for six months, it was to be deemed a payable goldfield, entitling the discoverer to the bonus. •■ , . The Provincial Solioitob: But it was^t a payable goldfield. Mr Domett : Very well, I shall not cay a payable goldfield; but the object for which the bonus' was offered was clearly attained, and the land long ago proved to be auriferous, and yet you declared it to be rural. Is not that absurd on the face of it, after all these ten years of experience of the character of the ■district? the fact of the offered and claimed bonus Then after these ten years another person comes, and there again the absurdity goes further, for although you have a special regulation for dealing with that land, providing that it shall be set up to lease at a not less valuation than £10 an acre ; but even under this you don't bring it, but sell it at only £2 per acre, as rural land when it is really auriferous. It is said that by the fact of the land being left unclassified, you were bound to sell it, without allowing any time for tha board to have an opportunity of meeting to consider the subject. That is the argument; you simply preclude the board from such consideration, for it leaves no discretionary power to the board, because for the exercise of that power in the board, it is necessary to give a power to the Commissioner to delay the application in order to give him an opportunity of bringing the board together, for the purpose. You say that can't be done, that the sale must follow immediately on application. If you put such construction on the clause, you give no discretionary power at all ; for if the Commissioner withhold the land, the Board cannot consider it, and the land must be sold. The Phovincial Solicitor : That's the law. Mr Domett : That's your construction of the law, and it is simply a reductio ad absurdum, a perfect contradiction, and under that idea, if we follow out the argument, if twenty millionaires with money in their pockets wished to buy up, at £2 an acre, the whole of the gold lands of the Province might bo sold. Mr Moss (to Mr Daniell) : Do you not think you were wrong in selling the land ? Witness : We are now discussing calmly what we had to do in a hurry. Mr Moss: You have said it was a poor man's diggings ? Witness: Yes. Mr Moss: Were applicants who were chiefly Government officials, and leading tradesmen, the class of men who would be likely to eke out a living by grazing, and occasional gold-digging ? Witness made a reply, which did not reach the table. A short desultory discussion here ensued respecting the action taken by Dr. Eenwick, to compel a former commissioner to sell land, and in which lie was successful. Mr Domett stated that, there wr.s some similarity about the two dses, but that the present oue, which was under a different set of land regulations, was one much stronger in favor of withdrawing the land. Mr Moss said, in reply fo Mr Adams' assertion, that t.he land was not so auriferous as to be closed to sale ; he would cull Henry Pilkington : I applied to Mr. Curtis about Mnreh last, and asked for protection for a water-race I lmd been cutting at the Baton, for six months. He told me he could not give me any, but he would see what he could do by and by, and let me know. He never did let me know. Then Mr. Macmahon, a member of Council, came and said he would lay the matter before the Council, but I heard ro more of that. I had five acres surveyed by Mr. Wooley, and applied to buy or lease. I spoke to Mr. Brunner and told him I would take it either to lease or any way. I had been told by both Mr. Eobinson and Mr. Saunders that I ought to know better than npply to purchase aurii'erous land. I apnlied to the Superintendent ; it was through not being protected that many men went away from Wangapeia with plenty of money in their pockets. I applied to the Superintendent but g"t no protection. The Pkovincial Solicitor : The Superintendent was not the man to apply to. Mr Moss : Did you know Don Peter Anderson. Witness : Yes, he applied for protection from Mr Daniell, and got a paper. There had been a disturbance on the Baton, some jumped his ground, and he came down and got this protection from Mr Daniell, and the men then went away; but wo, who had no protection, had to give up. I never looked to buy the land, as I knew it. to be auriferpus, and had been told that it was not for sale. Mr Curtis.: I have nothing to add to what Mr Paniell has Baid regarding the non-declaration of the Wan^apeka gjldiielcl. it did no,t appear to the Government uesirable to make it into a goldfield, and the same wish was expressed by the Provincial Coun- : cil. Tha ground did not warrant it as regards rich-; ness. Mr Domett : Did the .Council make a resolution on the subject ? -« Mr v Curtig: They never expressed any formal ] opinion either way* Some men w,ere cultivating! land, and it was the desire of the last three Snpcrin-; tendents to try and get the land gradually settled, by ! inducing people to buy einaJJ sections upon it,' or to '- lease under the Agricultural Leashes Act. Within ; the last two years, since I Lave beeuin office, scarcely ! any land has been sold, in consequence of the opera- j tion of the Land Leasing Act. Classifying the land as mineral land, would have been to throw it open to sale to a greater extent, and in a different way to stop mining for gold. I am not quite clear about that, for I have not had time to look into the act, but I think that would be the result. When asked by miners for protection, I always told them that as the land was not within the goldfield, we could not authorise mining, nor give protection, but that they were allowed to mine, and in the event of any discoveries being amde, which would make it desirable to proclaim it a goldfield, I would take care to protect them as far as possible. I don't recollect Pilkington coming to me, but I dare say he is correct, except as having applied to purchase, I don't think ; he difl. With respect to classification of land, all ; land not classed under the first three heads, was held i to be a fourth elasa, jjamely, rural land, and that was the position of the sold *laad. By the 3lst section of the act, rural land is open for st^e fiy free selection, at £2 an acre.' .1 understot)^ the clause'to,Bje.an that any person can buy any piece of land Which '(% open fa jsale as rural land, and oh his tendering the prick' tl(e jjujul )s his; There is no discretionary power: giv.em'jo.the I would only'say that such j^,er is expressly excluded from #16 act by clause 3& '"' ' ' >.-■•' ■> ' ■ Mr Pqmett .: £ou don',t j^e^a jto Bg,y that the act says that? ■ ' '■*' •' •' Mr Curtis: Per}j«j>9 ijfc ytqotV expressly^xehided,"' but when resolutions on which the a,ct was fjprnied ,were passed, it was clearly the intension of Wie Council to leave no discretionary power. !flie Legislature have always guarded against this discretionary power, to a Commissioner, because they have thought, »nd I think rightly, that iti existence

ccssful

would be opening a door to » corrupt administration of the Waste Lands. Mr Domett : But the Provincial Councils were not averse to giving a discretionary power to the Waste Lands Board. Mr Curtis: No. Mr Domett : Then, in order to give such discretionary power.to the Board, it wos surely necessary to give some power to the Commissioner. Mr Curtis then proceeded to say that the Riving of such power was a choice between two evils, the one leading to difficulties, and the other to corruption. He referred to the unwise discretion permitted by the Dfago Waste Lands Regulations, and the evils whicn had arisen under them. One evil causes the other. The power of the Commissioner under the 35th and 32nd clauses of the act applied equally, and prevented him from exercising any discretion in the matter of sales of rural land. After touching on the ease of Dr Renwick against Mr Domett, when Crown Land Commissioner at Nelson, which Mr Curtis said applied exactly to the present case, and he continued. I remember another case a few days prior to that one | in which when the Collingwood Goldfields broke out 12 years ago, an application was made for the purchase of a block of land, but on its being suggested that the law would compel you to sell, you did sell. I was one of the applicants for land in the Aorere Valley, -next to Collingwood. You then took the step of fixing up a notice of withdrawal in the Land . office; and then came Dr Renwick's affair and the mandamus. These cases were fully before us at the time this sudden rush arose, and mainly influenced men advising, and Mr Daniell in acting. If we had sufficient proof of the discovery of a. real quartz reef, instead of being informed by a person of whom we knew nothing, and who merely produced specimens which might have come from, anywhere, we should have taken steps to have had a meeting of the Land Board at once to withdraw the land from sale that afternoon. It did not seem to me, at all events, likely that anybody would think of buying land without getting more information about its value. I certainly should not have been, disposed to risk £5 on it myself, and I considered next morning, at the usual hour, quite time enough. Could I possibly have foreseen the difficulties that have arisen, I should have asked Mr. Daniell to take the responsibility of stopping the sale, and, with the consent of the Executive, have guaranteed him from the consequences of hia illegal act. I consider it would have been illegal. Mr. Kingdon declined to cross-examine Mr. Curtis, because he said he had pointed out no new points of law, but merely made an excuse for himself and Mr. Daniell. Mr. Moss: Were you not previously warned that, a reef was likely to be found there ? Did not Mr Baigent bring you some rich specimens ? Mr. Curtis :He showed me some specimens, but they had no connection with a reef. Mr. Moss: Why have you not applied for the opinion of the Attorney-General ? Mr. Curtis: There is a correspondence on with the Attorney-G< n ;ral. Mr. Moss: Did you get an opinion from the Attorney-General stating you might still annul the sales ? Mr. Curtis: The correspondence is still going on. I believe Mr. Domett has the correspondence. Mr. Wakefield :We have no opinion of the Attorney-General. Mr. Domett : Any correspondence between the General Government and Provincial Government, on such a subject as this," should be made public at once. Mr. Curtis :It is not yet finished. Mr. Domett :It ought to he here. Mr. Moss :Do you think the simple laying down of the money foi' land is purchasing it ? Mr. Curtis: Yes, I think it is in regard to such land. Mr. Moss : Had or have you any interest, directly or indirectly, in any of these purchases ? Mr. Curtis: I have an interest in Culliford's Mining Company ; a public company registered. Lavi James said.•;■ I applied to Mr. Robinson to buy land in the Wangapeka district, and was refused becmse it was auriferous. This closed the Enquiry, which was adjourned to Thursday. CONCLUSION OF THE ENQUIRY. THE COMMISSIONER DECLARES THE WANGAPEKA SALES ILLEGAL. Yesterday afternoon at half-past two, the Hon. A. Domett proceeded to close the Enquiry. There was a large attendance, particularly of miners. Mr Domett said that Mr Moss, as representing the miners, would read some remarks on the evidence, and after that, if any one on the other side chose to reply, such reply would he allowed. He would then himself read his views of the whole case. MB. MOSS' BEVIEW OF THE ENQUIRY. Mr Moss said: Your Honor, before reading my review of the evidence offered at this Enquiry, nowconcluded, I desire to state that in assuming llje position I took, at the urgent request of the men among whom I am employed—a position kindly granted to me by yourself and Mr KingCloh— I knew that I was undertaking a tiu'f to which I was totally unaccustomed. Possibly in endeavoring to do the best I could for the cause I.lfi»d undertaken, I may have overstepped the strict'bounds of etiquette requisite in such proceedings. If I have done so, I can on)^ plead inexperience as my excuse, together with the -fcaniijiTOSs v/n,h which I undertook the duties. If it''bi»''iw'l>iwunptouß, I should desire here to expre^tiSS'nriiitfrs' sense of the thorough and impartial mfctnM>?^n%hich your Honor has conducted the Enquiiy/'.lWfjHke raadiness with which you allowed the preVnUj^tjfjill witnesses we suggested. Mr MdwtfigJH««d his paper as follows :— AU wh(Tli^f«iß(^|ched the progress of the searching Enquiry wfiu&^hai^just beeujeoncluded, must feel tliat it has WrSEjjfhout been free from a shadow of partiality, ar«K'vrfkn one exception, has been exhaustive with resp»ftWtobfl points raised. That, exception has refe|eOe»TjisljKe legality of the gales, which perhaps is lesS*^ W«^% of evidence than of logical deductions from^W^ikar'ess provisions of the Waste Lands Act. To'^al^Ppfopose to refer in its proper place. Meanwhile;|yil«^^jftjiearrangementlaid down j by your Honor, in yuuir (fartling address, 1 shall proceed ! to notice some of attending the ' application for the s^j^otEm mmlb. It lias been proyeW^yi'-ifflirspecimens of goldbearing quart? w.ere e|jffiiijirfi& CulJi'ford jto the ( authorities, clearly ind?|jW«jgf^M|uriJ!erous couu,try,' which had for years beonsiito^rjrfJPid li«s throughout this Enquiry been admit||(tw JwGro'vernin'ent to fee i auriferous land. ft is Mj&fii|i)pbly proved from ' the evidence, that ampßgjjPy- was afforded to' the Government, aud tOMplitfe' liajids Board,! to put in motion the' pro«Uoos of tha law, even as they understood /«Mii'*'.' ufor withdrawing the land from sale h|w *Jbt, Superintendent and Commissioner bad having that done. This could have ~.,pwp||ected with ease if ordinary prudence AM|f capacity had been exercised. The knew of the discovery. Mr Greenfield.^HH^JSjincial Secretary, had a private interview two days before the sale w^Dwtiwd, and after that sale there remained ©nj pit least, during which the land might have Bjffs mftaprawn. I cannot hesitate to declare my oputMJbJutf that of those for whom I act, that in thirl mjst jpiere has been, neglect of duty and careless ||l^pMtion, and the evidence proves the assertions^^Ha X With respect to the intere^ fdnw,pnd indirect, in these sales of those persons wfimtomw'iELi.kil officially with fjbe Government, that i^Jffl||p which I wish to approach tenderly, and to fain have avoided reference altogether^^Wikmt, the Provincial 'Solicitor, wnen ¥*$$&&? fn Tuesday, 'that I had certain eUßP'c'flP^S|»|^)'P subject, challenged the production of <4lpi|Jiwftes to substantiate mycharges. I>m&^f^^^^npß, knowing) that proof in 'such'cases 'is' <^fj|lMMKr difficult toCrpcuVe. ' ,But,' I nievortheleßii'l J™^pji&ce t br*ught| efo^eyoui*'Hon'or'wnVrants BCMjH^BJponger^thanj suspicion. ZJel; ,yspools &t th»t*lj|Mßffl(p'His Honor. the Superintendent a<^uovl^(||M^^9n|«!itness box, that he held shares in the CosDftny,» company claiming to MNBiP, *•*? Umul

mainly in dispute; that, in fact, ha had purchased an interest in public land, illegally sold. I say " illegally sold," for I shall presently show that the sale to Culliford is null and void, whatever may be the result of this Enquiry, of which, however, I have now no doubt. Since that sale, his Honor had endeavored, like any ordinary speculator in land, to secure his bargain.' He went to Wellington, and in his official capacity, and by his influence, induced the Government of the Colony to withdraw the claim of the Crown to the Royal minerals in the sold lund. Had that claim been still asserted, probably ere now the purchasers, bought for the gold, would have thrown up their purchases. Whilst holding, or rather affecting to hold, in his hands the machinery of the law, he, an' interested party, did not hesitate to attempt to put that machinery in force for the purpose of ousting men from claims they legally held under miners' .rights issued by his Government. Of the purchase by the Provincial Treasurer, we were told, on oath, by his clerk, Mr. Joseph Harley, that Mr. Sharp " looked very pleased" when he told him his name was inserted in an application for this land. Mr. Sharp, on the other hand, denies that he either looked or was pleased, and declares that he went to the Land office to get his name withdrawn, but found that that could not be done. Is it possible that an explanation this like can be accepted ? Can any man, without my knowledge, put my name down as a land purchaser, and must I be bound to agree to that purchase against my will ? It is a simple absurdity. Mr. Shallcrass told your Honor that he purchased from an original buyer after the sales were closed, and yet he bad no difficulty in getting his name inserted in the application. Had Mr. Sharp really desired to get rid of the land, instead of retaining it, for profitable speculation, there can be no doubt that, both in law and practice, he could have withdrawn his name. • ... Of Mr. Gully I had rather not speak, but I must. He knew officially of Culliford's purchase. Mr. Daniell testifies to that. He requested his stepson's name to be inserted in the application, and first declared on his oath, in this Court, that he had no interest in the purchase, that the interest was Moore's, and at the next sitting admitted that the interest was his own. Were there then no reasons for suspicion ? Does this not prove that there was room for a good deal more than suspicion ? It is very easy for the Provincial Solicitor, whose partner himself was a purchaser of auriferous land, to challenge proof, by asking me to produce Provincial officials as witnesses for examination ; but when wo find such singular discrepancies in evidence as those which I have alluded to—discrepancies which it pains me to think should be found in the evidence of such witnesses,—it will be seen that it is no easy task to arrive at the absolute truth. Another singular affair is Mr Broad's conduct. That gentleman told you in the witness box that he visited the Wangapeka under instructions from the Superintendent and the Executive; that he visited it in no official capacity, not, as Warden, not as Magistrate, yet. he actually acted as both, for he took the money for business licenses and miners' rights, and also issued an absurd warrant to arrest a man ; all this he did under instructions from his Honor the Superintendent, who had a private personal interest in the first piece of land that was sold. As I could not examine Mr Broad sufficiently, firstly, because his presence in the box was at that time unexpected, and secondly, because I was unprepared to cross-examine—l mention incidentally, although it. was not brought out in the evideuce, (and it will not be denied by the Government, for I produce a copy of Mr Broad's memorandum, and the Government had the same proposals officially reported to them,) that Mr Broad made the following series of propositions to the miners on the occasion of his last visit: — "1. Survey to be proceeded with. "2. Miiiers to be allowed to work in the ground purchased, leaving the purchasers to their remedy in a Court of Law. "3. Culliford's claim to be protected as being equal to the amount of ground he could have held under a mining lease. " 4. The clauses under the Goldfield* Act, relative to miners working on private property, not to be enforced by the Warden. "5. Miners who have marked out ground, to take them in rotation along the line of reef from boundary of Culliford's claim." Mr Broad stated in his evidence that he was "instructed by the Government." These propositions then, must be taken as the result of those instructions. To what do these propositions tend ? If they mean anything at all, they mean that Mr Broad considered the ground to be within the goWfields, and that he clearly acted as a Warden on a goldfield, and made propositions in accordance with Roldfiekla rules, except that he undertook n,ot to enforce the clauses respecting mining op, private property. We rejected the?e proposal-'because we beiieved the sales to be illegal, and'" these propositions made by the Warden confirpi&d that belief. Then the evidence shows that Mr Maclean, the Regislrnr of the Supreme Court, Mr Jackson, the Provincial Auditor, Mr Harley, Mr. Gully, and Mr Brunner nil knew that the land they bought professedly as rural land was and is auriferous land ; as indeed the Commissioner himself was well aware of when ho sold it for £2 an acre. I now come to the question of whether the sold land is within the boundary of the goldfields. Little need be said ou that subject. The evidence seems to . me to bo conclusive. It i* melancholy to witness the proof of the hopeless confusion that prevails in the Survey office. Notwithstanding that enormous sums of money have been spent for surveys in past year* not only is little known of the interior of the country, but the most lamentable blunders und gross negligeuce have been apparent. Pour office maps have been produced at this Enquiry, each one different from the three others. The Superintendent's office map, on which the census districts marked, has been proved untrustworthy with respect to the site of Mount Owen, a vital point in the question at issue. Haast's map has been proved incorrect. Mr Gully's map, with the various colored spots and extraordinary mountain range, has been shown to be a mere deceptive " sketch," for it exhibits a pretended mountain range, which we know from other sources does not exist at all, and about which all that the draughtsman could tell us was, that it was " not intended" as a range, but was merely "" a general impression of a range," ah expression as" vague' as some of tpe so-called surveys themselves. Then,I'at the eleventh hour, Mr Richmond's map of Mr Rochfort's explorations is produced, and this again is different from all the others. It seems the climax to the confusion. Maps are forgotten. They are left without: date. One mountain occupies four different sites in as many official maps, and a private map belonging.to the Chief Surveyor differs from aU the re9t. Th.c only map that agrees with the proclamation is the map of Stanford's, and it agrees also in the run <jf the ranges, and appearance of the pountrj, with, that part of Haast's map north of the Buller river. TJ)js despised and rejected map of Stanford's is npw admitted to be an official map, distributed by the Provincial Government to goldfields officers for their instruction and guidance. This official distribution is a fact of which none of the member* of the Waste Lands Board was aware when they rejected it, but which the Commissioner now admits would have made " a great deal of difference" in the result of the Board's cogitations. Mr Barnicoat said nearly the same thing, and I presume the Superintendent meant to imply it when he intimated his ignorance of the fact, that the maps were officially furnished, and officially used, (as the evidence of Mr Lightband, MrDreyer, and Mr Burke has proved), by the Chief Commissioner and the other Wardens, even to the length of the Commissioner tracing out the boundaries of the goldfields, as they are traced out on the map I produced, agreeing with the proclamation, and with the body of independent evidence from various other sources. ' It has be.en said repeatedly on the part of the Government officials that the/ intention" was to exclude the Valley of the'Wangapeka from the Goldfields; but 'Mat is merely opinion, there'is not a single document brought forward to prove it, and although his Honor c the Superintendent, mid it'was spoken of' fa' the C Council debates, not even these,- whatever their value, c were produced in lupport of th« ,W|ui» •tteptfta, •

Betides, intention goes for nothing in the face of the distinct terms of the proclamation, and' of the telling tacts that the Government issued miners',righU, and jthat Mr Warden Broad took the money for the Mine pn the ground, and also made the proportions quoted above. The question of intention therefore, goes for nothing, and from that I proceed to the testimony. ' ' I Mr Baigent, for years a runholder at the foot of ' Mount Owen;' David' Clark, who had cut the track over a spur of the mountain in company with-Robert ' Donald; Robert Donald, who had six times travelled { the country fronv Nelson to the' sea coast; at the r mouth of the Buller; Thomas Fawcett, for years* ' storekeeper in the Wangapeka district ; Henry Pilkington, "off and on" a ten year* inhabitant of the district; William Noble; who crossed Mount Owen * twice, all distinctly prove, and their evidence was::. not only unshaken, bat was actually strengthened by Cross-examination, that the true Mount Owen, stands '. where it is placed on Stanford's map, in (act, as well ■. as in the concurrent opinion of all who reside near it, or have travelled the country. . Mr Richmond's map, the result of the latest explorations, also places the , mountain at the head of the River Owen, just as Mr Haast placed Mount Murchison at .the source of the river of the same name, because the river springs from the mountain. In short, all the maps may be dismissed except Stanford's, for the mass of evidence, local and distant, most certainly proves the position we occupy, that Mount Owen is the mount on Stanford's map. The Provincial Solicitor sought to shake the evidence of David Clark by producing his report of his proceedings when cutting the track. In that report Clark i» made to say that,his men named the mountain Mount Donald, and that Mr. Donald. called it Green Mountain. That mistake is easily explained. Clark is an illiterate man, and can hardly write. Mr. Blacketb took from him the facts, and threw them into the form of an official report. Naturally in stating these facts some slight confusion might arise as to nnmes, which at first sight tends to shake Clark's evidence. But what follows ? Mr. Donald confirms Clark's evidence, which was to the effect that he. knew the mountain was called Mount, Owen many years ago, just as Fawcett declared. Mr. Donald, said Clark's man Norris, said "we shall call that Mount Donnld," "no," said Clark, " that, .is Mount Owen." Donald also stated, further on, that he named a certain low range of hills "'the Green Hills." Here we have confirmation of Clark's evidence, and a reconcilement of the seeming contradiction between that and the report that Mr. BJackett drew up from his own lips. These facts appear to prove conclusively that the site the petitioners contend for is the true site of Mount Owen. " : " ; : As touching the question of the legality of the sal* of the land, it is, I presume, unnecessary to argue that the land is auriferous land, that' it has been, not only " supposed," as the clause in the Waste Lands Act has it, but actually known for it least ten years to be auriferous land. The evidence on that head is incontrovertible, and the fact must consequently be conceded without demur; and therefore I take up the sales themselves. Firstly. On the general grounds, that the sales were illegal. The somewhat feeble efforts of his Honor the Superintendent, and of the Commissioner of Crown Lands to excuse their want of judgment and ordinary forethought, which evidently prevailed through the whole Enquiry, may be dismissed without remark. But it is impossible to avoid Baying that an absolute ignorance of the land law was exhibited both in their conduct and their arguments. The whole proceedings display a complete misconception of the scope and meaning of the Waste Lands Act, perfectly marvellous in people appointed to admin* ister a vast public property. Auriferous land is throughout carefully conserved by the Waste Lands Act. It mußt be remembered that the land in dispute known to be auriferous was sold at £2 per acre, in blocks of 16 acres, for £32 per block. In the Mining Laases clause, (section 65), the right to mine for gold is " expressly reserved," and the method of dealing with "auriferous land not included in any goldfields," is as expressly and unmistakably set forth in clause 70, which is as follows'?— " 70. It shall be lawful for the Board if they think fit to grant leases of auriferous land not included in any goldfields, in blocks not exceeding ten acres, at a rent in every case of ten per cent.on'the value thereof as assessed by the Board, and for terms not ex* ceeding seven years, Provided that no land shall be valued at less than Ten Pounds per acre for the put» pose of this section. Provided further that before any lease is granted under this section the land thereby demised shall have baen offered for rale by auction at the upset price on which the rent is charged." The upset value per acre, for a lease of auriferous land is not to be less than £10, on which ten per cent, per annum must be paid, making, supposing there were no compet.tion, which v an improbable idea, an annual rent of £16 for each 16-acre block, at the very least, co that these Waßgapeka blocks have been sold for only two years purchase, even at this low rate of computation. Now let us look at clause 65, which provides for leasing mineral land exclusive of the right to mine for gold. That clause provides for a nominal rent of sixpence per acre for the first year and one shilling per acre for every other year during the currency of the lease, and that not less than one-fiftieth nor more than one-twenty-fifth of the minerals raised be paid as royally. Take a coal mine embraced within (for the sake of comparison), say 16 acres. Suppose 10,000 tons per annum were raised, which is a moderate computation , that at the low price of ss. per ton nt the pit-mouth would yield £2500. Two percent, (one-fiftieth) of that as royalty yields £50 a year, or £18 per annum more than the sum for which the Waste Lands Board have sold the snme amount of gold-bearing land, in fee simple for ever. Common sense, which means common justice, and a fair interpretation of the law unquestionably point out that such a grof s anomaly could never have been intended by the Legislature, and is totally opposed to the true intent and meaning of the Act. Clause^BpeciallAvO^rovides for the disposal of " auriferous lancJß"not included in any «, goldfields," and it is impossible to doubt that that clear and distinct provision was intended to prevent, and, fairly interpreted, positively does prevent, the alienation of such lands. It follows from all this that the arguments based on the presumed meaning of clause 24, that "auriferous" land not specially classed, is by subsection ,4 to be viewed as rural land, are founded on'a total misconception of the 'Act, for it is a Jegal akiom that no special and distinct enactment' like that of cla'uie 70 can be superseded by a mere implication such as is presumed'to exist in clause s}#. •' • '"""' ' '" " There is a further fallacy in this presumption of the Waste Lands Board. It will be observed thai subsection 3, of clause 24,' specifies as one class, ." minerals of value." The word " minerals" has a here signification distinct from gold, for when gold* bearing land is referred to ft is termed " auriferous" land, not 1( mineral" land; and the whole scope of tl^ sections from. 6Q po QjEJ inpjusive, referring to .'■ " J^inepal Prospecting Licences, and Mining L<saijps,>' prove that this is the true and proper reading o/ thj act, for. the phrase ■" mine?a)9 Qtljer th.aDgp.ld 1' i» repeatedly employed under that heading. The disposal of auriferous laud is specially provided for, and, neither the word " mineral' nor the word '* rural" can therefore be presumed to include the auriferous land, dealing with which is so carefully hedged about by. : conservative provisions.. . ■ It is possible that the latter part; of clause 69, may be employed as a defence of the proceedings of thr Board in selling this land, and therefore it falls to be noticed here by anticipation. The following is the clause :— j,. Af II / 'i " 69. Auriferous lands may^not be leased under this foregoing provisions, and the decision of the Bo*™ whether land is auriferous or not shall be conclusive.' It will be seen that the classification clause 24j • enumerates l"town," 2 "suburban," 8 "mineral, and 4 " rural" land. Clauses 69 and7ocreate afijt» -1 class of land, distinct and separate from, and not embodied in the classification clame, namely, " a#r»; . - ferous" land. The Boaid has virtually declared that , this is " auriferous land not included in any goldfleW. It was a "poor man's diggings" as wehave been *•{>*•**. -'• edly told by the official witnesses, and ewn the MM Commissioner so far acknowledged its »«rif*r<2" character w to go beyond his own sphere of «UJ» wd ftu»w*lu«<i ofMofeipotato tot***

miner working for gold in JU^^fae district,, The Board never decided that was not auriferous; their actions for ten jatn,'jKad their evidence at this; Enquiry prove, beyciKl^uaßtion, &•' they knew and held it to be " auriferous land." In the early part of this paper, it was asserted that the sale to Alfred Culliford was illegal, and proof of; that assertion will now be offered. The illegality of that transaction may be taken as proved by the facts and conclusions that have gone before; conclusions which, if just and true, must invalidate the whole of the sales. But beyond this general invalidation, there is a special on* with reference to Alfred Culliford's purchase, even supposing that the Board's interpretation of what is rural land, was correct, • position which i» distinctly denied. Clause 35 states:— ■• '■ ;. ■ ; -::';-,;-%..,. .■' •• : - "36. Rural land not open for sale under any of the preceding provisions, maybe purchased in such sections as the applicants may describe and point out, subject to the general regulations herein contained, as to forms of sections and surveys, at the maximum price of Two pounds per acre. Provided that whenever land so purchased is beyond the limits of the surveys already executed or about to be immediately executed by the Government, the expense of the survey thereof shall be borne by the purchaser who shall deposit the estimated cost with the purchase money. Both the Land Commissioner and the receiver of land revenue' have admitted that Culliford did not " deposit the estimated cost of survey with the purchase money." That fact is not in evidence, but these gentlemen will readily admit it, if that is necessary. They probably may shelter themselves from the result of this non-compliance with a positive proviso, under clause 30, or it may be clause 64. Clause 30 says :— " 80. It shall be lawful for the Commissioner to allow any applicant, for the purchase of unsurveyed land in the district, the survey of which is not immediately about to be undertaken by the Government, to have such land surveyed at his own expense, by a surveyor authorised .by the Commissioner in that behalf, and receiving his instructions in each case from the Commissioner, but the applicant shall be responsible for the correctness of such survey. The land may then, unless reserved or withdrawn from sale, be put up to auction, and an allowance made to the purchaser, for the expense of the survey, at the rate of five acres for every hundred acres. Should the land be reserved or withdrawn from sale, the applicant shall be paid the cost of the survey, such cost to be ascertained and limited as provided in the section next hereinafter contained." This clause clearly applies to land sold by auction, under clause 25; for it declares that after the survey, it " may then be put up to auction." Under this clause it is true no demand is made for a deposit of the survey fee, and for very obvious reasons. The applicant is allowed five acres in every hundred, to cover the expense of the survey, so that he receives an equivalent for the fee he pays to the surveyor, if be becomes the purchaser; in the meantime, if the land is withdrawn from sale, or reserved, he shall be paid the co9t of the survey. Should the land be purchased at auction by another person, then clause 31 provides for the payment to tho original applicant of the cost of the survey. It is clear that clause 30 can only refer to land for auction, for it is evidently sales by auction to which that clause, and others preceding, refers, and the reason why no deposit is asked in such a case, is the evident one of the uncertainty of the original applicant becoming the purchaser, as he may be outbid at auction. Under clause 35, for the sale of rural lands at £2 per acre, no such uncertainty exists; the sale is absolute, and the scope of the clause clearly means that the Government shall undertake the survey, and take a deposit of the cost of the same. Clause 64, if that is relied on, only adds, by fact and analogy, further proof of the illegality of Culliford's purchase. The immediately preceding clause (63) refers to applications ..for leasing land for the purpose of "mining for minerals, " other than gold," and provides for a deposit of so much per acre, and for a further deposit to be "made at the same time,; for the survey of the land applied for." In this case there is no sale by auction, no uncertainty as to the applicant receiving his lease, if he chooses to take it up; the case in that respect is parallel with that of the absolute sale under clause 35. Clause 64 says :— "64. The survey thereof shall be made with as little delay as may be by the Government, but in case it shall not be practicable for the Government to make such survey without great delay, the Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, allow the applicant to employ, at his own expense, some surveyor approved by the Commissioner to make such survey, and in that ease the applicant shall be entitled to a refund of the payment on account of survey so soon as the plan is accepted by the Commissioner." The provision to refund the money in this case, if the survey is made at tho expense of the applicant, proves beyond question that the survey deposit must be made when the land is bought under clause 35, which is a distinct and separate clause, unconnected with any other, and demanding strict and complete compliance with the letter and spirit of its enactment. That demand was not complied with in the cage of Culleford's purchase, and I contend that in consequence of that non-compliance his purchase is invalid, and the sale is void. It only now remains to notice your Honor's closing remarks with reference to the " existing state of the law, or the administration of it, and the way in which it should be amended." The tenor of the foregoing review will show the opinion that misconception of the law, as it stands, has led to its mal-adrainistra-tion. Properly administered, in accordance with sound principles, and on careful study of its true intent and meaning no such difficulty as the present could possibly have arisen. If, however, there is any obscurity caused by the multiplicity of enactments, a simple amendment could easily be effected ; and a suggestion is now respectfully offered that a provision to remove doubts be made law empowering the Commissioner of Crown Lands, whenever he shall have sufficient reason, to hold in abeyance for a limited period, any application for lease or purchase, until it has been submitted to the consideration of the Waste Lands Board. My statement is at an end. I have to thank your Honor for the courtesy and consideration which the miiiera have received at your hands throughout the present important, and satisfactory Enquiry. '"''. .• R. A. Moss, Qn behalf of the Wangapeka Miners. '.. poison, 33, rd December, 1869. ■' My LfT ®xs ame4 th.M' some mistake had • occurred' with respeqt tq his evidence on the first day; he had not denied haying an interest in the purchased land. ;• jyfr DqifETT said his unacquaintance with judicial enquiriee of thia kind had led him into a Blight mistake. He should prqperly have heard Mr Moss's Statement, as part of the Enquiry and had it before nira in summing up, though he did not think Mr Mos9's statement would have required much comment, fop, in fact, he agreed entirely with him through ■a very considerable portion of his remarks ; as would be' Seen in the paper which he was about to read. •Mr Moss had thought it necessary to apologise, lost he should have infringed any etiquette. There was no need for such apology ; Mr Mosa deserved great credit both for the ability he had displayed, and the nwnner in which" he had- conducted his case, as well as for the excellent temper he had displayed, which would be a lesson to many professional gentlemen he had seen. r • : After a brief,- and in general, a complimentary criticism on Mr Moss's address, stating that he thought his-proposed alteration for improving the law a very proper and reasonable one, Mr Domett proceeded to iread his address.. Mlti DOMETT'S ADDBESS. • : The Enquiry into the Wangapeka Land Sales ..having terminated, I have determined upon the .:,Mther unusual course of., giving in public the conPlusiornl .have come to ; upon the ; subject, before .I, have bad an opportunity of submitting them to .the Government in the form of a report.— -which, no doubt, would be afterwards published —became I think that bj tv doing all persona

immediately interested in the question ■will be the sooner enabled to decide upon any ulterior course , they may jthink it desirable to take in order to obtain an authortative and definitire settlement of their respective rights in the matter, which, as I have more than tonce already remarked, can only be given by the Supreme Court; and because the excitement caused by'the agitation of this subject will thereby, it is to b» hoped, be the sooner allayed, and the impediments to the pursuit of a moat important and beneficial branch of industry be the sooner removed; —these being) the objects, I presume, the Government had principally in view in causing the Enquiry ; to s be undertaken. , I propose to take up the. points of inquiry in the same .order in which they have been investigated, giving the results produced upon my own mind with regard to each as briefly las is consistent with clearness. Without attempting to detail, where facts ere concerned, all - the evidence upon which I have founded my opinion ; toao which would occupy too much time, and perhaps might so overlay the subject as to risk its being made unintelligible—at least in a viva vooe address of thia kind. The evidence has been or will be published n the completest form possible, and is I think fortuilately of such character as to lead to not much variety of opinion as to the con- j elusions it leads to. \ ' In the first plaoe then, we enquired into the transactions that took place respecting the land sales. The prinoipal objects to he ascertained herein were: — Firstly, Whether certain 'officials in the employ of Government, who were amongst the purchasers of the land in question, made any improper use of information given them by their position so as to obtain any undue advantage over the rest of the public ? and Secondly: Did the Waste Lands Board exercise all the promptitude desirable in the withdrawal of the district containing these lands from sale under the Waste Lands Act ? With respect to the first question, we have examined every single official without one exception whose name occurs on the list of purchasers. They were examined, cross-examined, and re-called for examination, until every question which the sagacity or ingenuity of those whom I may call the counsel on both sides of the question could devise to elicit the fullest statement- of all that took place, had been put and replied to. And I mußt say that it appears to me to have been made abundantly evident—both that no individual in the Government employ obtained, by any undue means whatsoever, any particle of information upon which he acted in putting in hia application or making his purchase, and that the information he did obtain was got from a source to which all the public had equal access, and entirely outside the Government offices. This was proved by the evidence given in the most direct, straightforward, candid, and consistent manner by the officers themselves, and by the avowal of Mr. Culliford, the miner, that he himself had authorised Mr. Everett to make the information as to the discovery of the position of the reef as public as he pleased, he (Culliford) having secured his own position by the purchase of the i first piece of land f sold. It was proved that this information was given in the public room of an hotel the evening before the purchases were made. With respect to a special piece of information, which was the subject of much discussion, viz., as to the locality of a second spot, where the reef, I presume, re-appeared—at allevents, a spot by a little diatan .9 from the first series of sections applied for—it was clearly shown by Mr. Brunner (who himself, moreover, was not subject to any real or supposed obi;gation to act in a different manner from that admissible in any other individual of the community, as not being a Government official in the ordinary sense) that Culliford himself gave and dictated the very words of the description which left a gap between the lands previously applied for and that now specially alluded to. It was shown too, with respect to Mr. Sharp's application to purchase (which I more particularly allude to, because he is the Government officer in the most important ai)d responsible position of any concerned) that the application was put in by another official without his knowledge, that he expressed disapproval of the proceeding, applied at the Land office to have his name struck out of the appliration and was told that it was contrary to the rules and could not be done, or in words to that effect. I do not think anything more can be required from a gentleman in his position than that; and his sincerity need not be doubted, when his assertion, which was not, disputed, is considered that he knew of the reef the evening before the sale, i.e., on the evening when the news was divulged at Everett's hotel, and abstained from taking advantage of his knowledge as he easily might have done without suspicion, by causing any other person, not connected with the Government, to put an application in his name. Government officials, it must be admitted, have the same right a 9 the rest of the public to purchase land, provided they take no advantage from their position, which the others are deprived of ; and I do not see that they have laid themselves open to animadversion on the present occasion, except,— which is more a matter botween themselves and the Government of the Colony than between themselves and the public—in so far as it would decidedly be considered inconsistent with the duty of an official to the Government that employed him, to take any steps that might tend to embarrass the Government or throw difficulties in the way of its administration of public affairs. In the present, case, it has not been show that they could have anticipated or could have foreseen this; and it would doubtless appear to them— if they considered the point at all —that (setting aside mere prejudice against, themselves as officials) such embarrassment would be equally caused, whether they themselves were or were not among a number of individuals whom the law allowed to interpose between the mass of the public, and the opportunity commonly supposed to be given by that law to the latter, of acquiring certain beneficial interests in lands of an auriferous character. Secondly, with respect to the degree of promptitude exercised by the Waste Lands Board in withdrawing the land from sale, I think it cannot be denied that it would have been quite possible for the Board to have ao withdrawn it before the morning on which the sale took place. Indeed, both the Commissioner of Crown Lands and his Honour the Superintendent allowed that could they have foreseen the rush and the excitement that actually took place, they would have taken care the meeting of the Board should have been held the ;day before. It was quite physically possible, I say, to have held the meeting in time for this. The inquiry has, I think, elicited the facts in explanation, or I may say in excuse, or at least in palliation of their apparent negligence in this respect, that on the 11th and 12th October, the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Greenfield, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr. Daniell, considered that they had no such knowledge of the existence—and none at all of the locality—of the reef Culliford said he had discovered, as would have justified them in requesting the Superintendent to call the Waste Lands Board together; that, on the 13th, when Oulliford first made distinctly known where the reef was, by putting in his application, the Commissioner was chiefly occupied with the idea of giving him protection in his discovery, and was indeed beating about the provisions of the "Waste Lands Act" to find how to do so; and that lastly, he was misled by Culliford's apparent anxiety to keep the matter secret into the belief that he would not divulge it; and consequently, as he could trust himself and the Receiver of Land Revenue to do the same, no urgent necessity existed iot securing the attendance of Mr. Barnicoat and the other members of the Waste Lands Board in town that evening. There is no doubt that this is very mach to be' regretted ; still I cannot but consider tlut the inquiry made it unmistakeably apparent that i{ the Commissioner was in error herein, it was entirely an error of judgment, and not of motive or intention—an error very naturally fallen into, and not deserving of any very severe reprehension. Indeed, I must say it appeared to myself that the Commissioner was led into the course he took, rather by too iponscientious a desire to do his duty, and a very projjer anxiety to secure to a miner, whose discovery had} put him in the position of a benefactor of the putlic, what he (the Commissioner) thought was equitably due to him j than by any other motive whatever. [And I am happy to state here in public, both of thut gentleman , and of Mr. Outlay, the Receiver of Land Revenue, 1 thftt my former acquaintance, irith. thwu botfij for %

period of six years, during which I was in daily and familiar official communication with them, would have been sufficient to convince me of their being altogether incapable of abusing their position, by seeking any personal advantage through a dereliction of theirpublicduty, even without this investigation, which has tended to show the correctness of my opinion. I confess to having come to the inquiry with this much bias in their favour, and I am glad to be able to say that I think the inquiry shows it was not an improper or unjustifiable one. That part of the subject being determined, I come to the next in order, viz., the legality of the sales themselves. And first, as to the question whether the land was within the gold-fields boundary or not. This reduced itself to the single point, What is the position of a straight line drawn from the mountain named Mount Arthur and the other called Mount Owen? The words of the proclamation of the Gold-fields boundary not being sufficient to determine this, it was necessary to have recourse to some plan of that part of the country. The proclamation, it should be observed, in the j first place, refers to no place whatever. There is therefore perhaps none which can be taken or considered as an essential part of it, or as having the same relation to it which a plan on the margin of a Crown grant has to the description" in the body of the grant. The evidence of the official gentlemen concerned in the drawing up of the proclamation showed that the map actually referred to, or at least the one on which the supposed boundary had been^marked in colour, was a map usually kept in the office o{ the Superintendent. But unfortunately, it was also shewn beyond doubt that the position of Mount Owen on this map could only be regarded as entirely erroneous. There appeared no shadow of authority for its position on that map; it was declared by the principal draughtsman and others connected with the Survey Office, that the only two maps previously made and existing in the office, placed the mountain in an entirely different position. The only way, in short, in which the mountain's removal to its position on the Superintendent's map, could, after much stringent importunity of examination, be accounted for, was by the presumption of an accident—that it got accidentally shifted—the accident being wholly unaccounted for. This seemed to deprive that map of any pretension to be considered as having any authority in the matter. Of the other two map 3 previously made, one wa9 a copy of Mr. Burnett's, made to accompany Mr. Haast's Report of the journey upon which he named a certain mountain after Professor Owen. This map, no doubt, is entitled to great consideration as indicative of the locality of Mr. Haast's Mount Owen. And the evidence of Mr. Alexander Mackay, who acoompanied Mr. Haast on his expedition—though he was not present on tlie day Mr. Haast named the mountain—was very positive as to the mountain marked on this map being the one so named by Mr. Haast. Mr. Haasfc, moreover, in one or two passages of bis Report—particularly at page 75—specially distinguishes his Mount Owen from the mountains known as the Marina Ranges, among or close to which it is placed on the map, and would be situated, according to the evidence to be noticed presently, Mr. Haast, at page 75, saya:—" The general features of these chains, named by Mr. James Mackay the Marina Ranges, are similar to Mount Owen and Mount Mantell, which form their i'olated extensions towards the south," thus clearly alluding to them as separate mountains; though, as I understand his words, as forming different isolated parts of one general but broken chain. At page 74, he also distinguishes between the Marina Ranges (which must be the mountains alluded to as tlie " high, rocky ranges " where the River Owen takes its rise) and Mount Owen. Again, Mr. Mackay very positively declares that from the spot, or neighbourhood of the spot, upon which Mr. Haast stood when he named the mountain " Owen," he could only see the mountain set down as Mount Owen on Mr. Burnett's map. On the other hand, I cannot but confess that looking at other parts of Mr. Haast's Report, it seems to me either that Mr. Haast, when describing Mount Owen from a great distance, must have had in his eye the Marina Range, or a mountain close to that range —or else must have indiscriminately, or perhaps unconsciously, applied the name Mount Owen to the mountain of that, range, as Well a 9 to that set down on Mr. Burnett's map. I think so, partly because Mr. Haast at pp. 11 and 12 (the same leaf of his Report) denotes Mount Muivhison as a " splendid mountain about 5,000 feet high," arid Mount Owen as " three rugged peaks rising to a height of 7,000 feet, still in parts covered with snow," 2,000 feet higher than Mount Murchison. And at page 55, describing a grand panoramic view from Mount Rochfort, near the mouth of the Buller on the West. Coast; he describes " the rugged peaks of Mount Owen as appearing over the bold unbroken outline of the Lyell mountains." Now, if anything was made clear by the evidence respecting this locality—especially by the apparently excellent evidence of Pilkington and Donald—it is, that the peaks or mountains in the position set down by Mr. Burnett for Mount Owen, are very inferior among those ranges —are in fact not, higher above the riverlevel than the Wakapuaka hills above the sea in the neighbourhood of Nelson, while the great conspicuous mountain or group of mountains thereabout is at the head of the Owen River. Then we had evidence that Mr. Haast pointed out the Owen mountains as visib'e from Nelson. All this seems to point to the more than probability either that Mr. Haast sometimes alludes to the high mountains between the Tadmor and Owen at the head of the latter sa being called Mount Owen, or that when he first saw the mountain, he in fact saw the whole range so foreshortened that, the peaks of the latter mountain were mingled in appearance with those immediately before him. But on the next day of the inquiry, a new discovery (not of a mountain, but of a map) was made in the Survey Office; and this turned out to be a most important map—no other than one made by Mr. James C. Richmond, when himself Commissioner of Crown Lands, and regularly signed by himself, to accompany or elucidate a journey made by Mr. John Rochfort. On this map, Mount Owen has become the " Owen Group," and is placed, I think, as nearly as possible in the position given it in Stanford's map. Now this map is dated in Mr. Richmond's handwriting, "April 13th, 1863,, to, accompany Mr. Rochfort's Report." There is conclusive evidence, therefore, that Mr. Richmond and Mr. Rochfort considered the position given it on the map as the correct one, and I presume the one intended by Mr. Haast. The map, or rather the original tracing which is signed by Mr. Richmond, is also, I think, conclusive as showing in what the bestowal of the name of Owen to the mountain com* monly called so by persona settled in or acquainted with the locality, originated. I think it must be concluded that both Mr. Rochfort and Mr. Richmond gave their authority to the location of Mount Owen on the spot appropriated to it in Stanford's map, and that Stanford's map was constructed on this part of it from their plan. Then there occurs the question: The newly-dis-covered tracing, having this high authority at so early a date as 1863—the mountain it names Mount Owen being abundantly proved to have been generally called so by residents in and visitors to the spot ever since, and being apparently the one several witnesses have declared to be visible from Nelson— is it not as reasonable to interpret the proclamation by this map, and to consider it of as high authority as Mr. Burnett's (which for the reasons I have given above seems a doubtful one, even as illustrative of Mr. Haast's Report), or even of higher authority than the latter ? The map in the Superintendent's office being out of the question (except as evidence of intention), is not this map, signed by the Commissioner and adopted by the public, to be considered as the one by which the proclamation ought to be interpreted—perhaps all the more, for its being one of later date, and recognized by due authority at a time more immediately preceding the issue of the proclamation? ■ I may observe here, that if the evidence of the intention to exclude Wangapeka—about which there seems to be no doubt—were to be admitted as sufficient to decide the proper interpretation of the proclamation, the same rule must afterwards be applied to th« itttwpwWwn of the lani few* which would,

I think, operate very decidedly against the construeI tion put upon that law by the Board. I prefer to i leave out this consideration in both cases. I confess I think all these considerations are sufficient to make it at least a question of great doubt which map ought to be taken as authoritative,. and, consequently, which line ought to be considered as the true one under the proclamation. -It has also to be noted, that the internal evidence of the proclamation—that is, the character of the boundary-line, as it would be given by thewordsof the proclamation interpreted by Mr. Burnett's map —which would be very awkward, and unlikely to be taken as a boundary— is almoßt conclusive against the latter map being adopted as the decisive one. Lastly, it being, then, doubtful which map should be taken as illustration of the proclamation, it remains only to remark, that' the boundary-line drawn from Mount Arthur to the Mount Owen or the Owen group, as shown by Stanford's map, and by Mr. Richmond's tracing, would probably, or possibly, cut through the land sold. Only an accurate survey, then, would determine with absolute certainty upon the relative positions of these landlines and mountains towards each other. I cannot, therefore, pretend to pronounce a positive opinion upon the point whether the boundary of the Gold-fields includes or excludes the lands which have been the subject of inquiry. The conclusion to be obtained respecting the boundary-line of the Gold-fields not being such as to settle the question of the legality of the sale (as it would have done could it have been determined that the_ lands sold were within that boundary-line, in which case the lands would not have been saleable under the " Waste Lands Act"), it was necessary next to inquire whether the land, if outside the Gold-fields, was such, or so circumstanced, that the sale of it was illegal or otherwise, on other considerations. In other words, the inquiry may be reduced to these questions: Ist. Waß the Board bound to withdraw the land from sale? 2nd. If not withdrawn, was the Commissioner bound to sell it, or could he legally do so ? Now it cannot be disputed that the principle which has been adopted as the leading one in legislating upon auriferous lands has always, as a general rule, been that such lands shall not be allowed to fall into the hands or possession of private individuals, but shall be reserved to be dealt with on some plan or regulation which will admit the whole public to a share in the working of them. The object has been, therefore, to withdraw such lands from the operation of provisions authorizing their sale, and to bring them under the " Gold-fields Act," under which the fee simple of the law is not parted with, but a right to work for gold is given to everyone | equally who applies for it. This is undoubtedly the universally recognized principle, which with very few exceptions our Legislature has aoted upon. The " Gold Fields Acts " have always begun by taking auriferous lands from the operation of ordinary " Waste Lands Acts." It is true there is a contrary provision in the " Otago Waste Lands Act" running in the teeth of the provisions of the " Gold Fields Act," allowing the Governor, notwithstanding the latter Act, to stell lands in gold-fields. But the provision lias, I may say, always been looked upon as extraordinary, its introduction as unaccountable, and its character so objectionable, that it has been allowed after deliberation to remain a dead letter in tlio province it related to. The other apparent exception, namely, the sale of lands by purchasing clauses in gold-mining leases, is not inconsistent with the above principle. But in the "Nelson Waste Lands Act" a special and exceptional provision is contained, which allows of the leasing and even sale of auriferous lands not included in gold-fields. The rule would have been to have included such lands in gold-fields when known to be auriferous. But a 9 has been explained by the Commissioner of Crown Lands and by bis Honour the Superintendent, certain gold-fieldß at, Nelson, of which Wangapeka is one, having been found to contain gold—yet not in sufficient quantities to attract a large population of miners—it was thought desirable to keep those lands open for settlement, and therefore for sale to persons who might carry on farming and gold-digging simultaneously—making wages in one way or other in what was called a "Poor Man's Diggings.' But around the exceptional power of selling gold lands the Legislature throws very considerable precautions, shewing a jealous care lest they should be parted with too easily. Accordingly, the 70th section of the " Nelson Waste Lands Act, 1863," after giving the Board power to lease at ten per cent, of the assessed value of the lands, provided that no such lands shall be valued at less than £10 per acre, and that no lease shall be given until the lands shall have been offered for sale by auction at that price ; the object, of this provision apparently being still to keep the ordinary or more valuable gold diggings under the gold-fields laws, i.e., open to the whole public, and that none should be allowed to fall into the hands of private purchasers, unless they have been proved not to be worth £10 per acre by submission to sale by auction at that upset price. This seems to be the intention of the "Nelson Waste Lands Act, 1863," with reference to the disposal of all auriferous lands, whether rich enough to be brought under the Gold-fields Acts, or only such as have been called " Poor Man's Diggings." How then was it that the land in the present instance, not being declared a gold-field for the reasons above given, was not dealt with under the provisions intended to apply to auriferous lands left out of gold-fields? The evidence showed that the object of the Commissioner of Crown Lands was to give, if possible, protection to the discoverer of the reef, Culliford. Being unable to give it under the provisions last alluded to, the Commissioner fell back upon the regulation for the classification of lands, under which he came to the conclusion—and acted upon it—that the land was simply rural land, and could be sold as such. It is necessary now to see what the law i§ regarding this matter of classification. Section 24 of the " Waste Lands Act" is. to the following effect: — " The Board shall classify the lands of the provinoe under four heads, that ip to say— " 1. Town Land, being sites intended for towns or villages. "2. Suburban Land, being land in the neighbourhood of such sites, "3. Mineral Land, being supposed to contain minerals'of value. " 4. Rural Land, being land not comprised in any of the foregoing clauses. " Provided that the Board may from time to time, if they think .fit, alter the class under which any land is classified, and remove it from the schedule of lands I for sale, for re-assessment accordingly; but every such alteration or removal shall bo notified, under the authority of the Board, upon the schedules in the Land Office." Now, to a superficial reader of this clause, it would no doubt appear that the Wangapefea land—being so clearly land " supposed to contain minerals of value"—because it is notorious, and has been shown in evidence, that there have always been diggers upon the land, and that a bonus for the discovery of a gold-field (which must be supposed to have meant, if not expressly so called, a " payable gold-field," for no one ever heard of a reward offered for the discovery of a gold-field that would hoi pay to work), had been actually offered and paid by the Provincial Government or Council with respect to this district —such a district, I say, it might actually be supposed, would be placed by the Section under consideration in the category of lands "supposed to contain minerals of value." But it was held by the Commissioner, very properly, and hns been very distinctly pointed out by his Honour the Superintendent, that the simple fact or supposition of the existence of minerals does not render any land mineral land under the Act, but that the Board must actually and formally pass a resolution to the effect that it is so, before it can be legally dealt with as such. I think that there can be no doubt of the, correctness of this view, that land cannoj. be dpilt with nnder one set of rules ox another in accordance with a mere opposition—a supposition, too," qf n,p, particularly s^cified individual or set'of, individuals. Mr. Curtis's words 'werei' l'This'Uand had not been classed under either of the three first' classes of land/and waa therefore rural laud, Tlie £wt of it* containing gold d«a not affect itt Ui»g

rural land in lnw, unless ib is withdrawn in sonio way from oniiimvy sale.- By the 35tb.section of the Act, rural land is open for sale by free selection, at £2 per acre. -* I understand that clause to mean that any person may buy any piece of land, he thinks proper, which is open for sale as rural land, at £2 an acre, and that on his tendering the money the land is his. There is no discretion whatever given to the Commissioner. Any discretion on the part of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, is expressly excluded by the provision for the withdrawal of land." He went on to say, "That the discretion has j intentionally excluded, and that the Act provides in Section 9, in what way land may be withdrawn by sale, the words of the section being 'it shall be lawful for the Board at any time, by resolution published in the Gazette, to make reserves of land among other things, for districts proposed to be constituted gold-fields.'" The Superintendent and Commissioner's view, then, of the matter is perfectly intelligible, namely, that the land had not been classed by resolution of the Board under either of the three first heads. That it fell then under the fourth head, which comprises all lands not included under the three first, namely, rural land. That any rural land may be sold at £2 an acre; that the Commissioner cannot refuse a person tendering his money, as that would be withdrawing the land from Bale by his own act, and that nothing but a formal resolution of the Board can so withdraw it. Now I will first make a few remarks on the question of discretion, and then return to this classification clause. The Superintendent based his view of the. necessity for the most stringent enforcement of all,provisions of the Land Act which take away from, or do not expressly confer, discretionary powers upon the Commissioner upon the avowed clanger of opening the door to the grossest abuses in the disposal of land, if such stringent enforcement were not insisted upon. On this point, as a general proposition, I most heartily concur with him ; it is one I have on a hundred occasions endeavoured to get observed in the construction of land laws. In a report I was commissioned by G-overnment to make some ten i months ago, on the administration of the waste lands of Otago by the Provincial Government, I made the following remarks, which I must read, lest what I have to say on the present occasion should lead to the conclusion that I nave not sufficiently kept in view the dangers of giving discretionary power to officers dealing with public lands. In the passage alluded to another discretionary power given to the Superintendent, was the immediate object commented upon, but this power was objectionable chiefly because accompanied Iby the very power of withdrawing lands from sale now under consideration: " There remains, however, to be noticed one great ! evil connected with the administration in Otago— one indeed which, while it exists, must naturally chuse dissatisfaction, even where no practical wrong may have been done, because it offers'such great temptation to take advantage of the great facility the law gives for abu9e, that suspicions will be sure to he excited, whether well grounded or not, that the abuse is of frequent occurrence. This evil is the constitution of the Waste Lands Board. The Board consists of a Chief Commissioner and four others, all appointed by the .Superintendent of the province. So far, the law is at fault, and the Commissioners would not have found it necessary to comment, upon it,; but. the mode in which the power given is exercised is distinctly a question of administration of the law. Now, the established custom in Otago appears to be the appointment, by the Superintendent of the members of his own Executive. Mr. Driver, a member both of the Provincial Council and the House of Representatives, brought this subjpct under the notice of the Commissioners. He objected on the ground that the Board 'is composed of a political body, consisting wholly of the members of the Executive G-overnment of the province. It is ludicrous to bear this body, as I have frequently done, referring cases for the opinion of the Government. The temptation to use the immense power given by their right to administer the Waste Land* of the province for political purposes and objects is obvious.' This brief and very pertinent remark has ' a reach and applicability far beyond the province of Otago. Had it indeed been the intentional and deliberate object of any lawgivers or of any Legislature to provide the most effective means for jobbery and corruption their imagination could devise, it is difficult to conceive they could have surpassed what has actually been done in this matter. To give to persons depending for their position and places on popular election a direct and immediate power for good or evil over the purses and property of those whose votes they depend upon, are eager to obtain, and must be disgusted at losing—whom they scarcely can avoid desiring to reward if adherents, or punish if opponents—to give such a power, under such circumstances, does seem about the most injudicious and impolitic proceeding it ever entered the brain of lawmakers or statesmen to devise or give coun- ■ tenance to. And, as if the amount of irregular or unconstitutional interference with the exercise of j political rights and privileges rendered possible in the administration of public lands by the more ordinary land-laws of the colony for other provinces were not . enough, those of Otago are exceptionally noticeable and peculiar in the extraordinary amount of discretionary power fchey confer upon the Waste Lands Board. One pimple instance will suffice : —The Board can, by one provision of the Act of 1866, 1 withdraw from sale at. their pleasure any lands " the sale or disposal of which may appear to them to be \ or likely to be prejudicial to the public interests;" and the land withdrawn may at any time be put up for sale again, nnd this without giving or recording any reason for the withdrawal from sale or subsequent, permission to sell or any public notification, whether of a month or a day, of the proceeding. Could any provision afford better opportunities and facilities for favouritism or vindictiveness ? And , it is especially to be remembered, that these powers are given to local administrators—those whose very position as neighbours, fellow-townsmen, or fellowprovincialists, subjects them necessarily to relations either friendship or hostility to the purchasers or other dealers in the public lands of the province." Now I think this passage expresses in language as strong as could properly be used, my opinion of the evil of absolute discretionary power being given to the administrators of land laws. But I think a wide difference exists between such power as I have alluded to and a power, whether given to a Commissioner of Crown Lands or to a Waste Lands Board, to be exercised for the preservation of what is universally acknowledged to be a public right and interest, under such clearly laiddown conditions limiting its object and extent —defining the time within which it, shall be exercised, and for securing the utmost publicity as to the mode and occasion of its exercise. No one could reasonably object, and no one, as far as I know, does object to the Waste Lands Board having a discretionary power to withdraw auriferous lands from sale. The objection appears to be to a Commissioner having such power. But, suppose that the case is such that the opportunity for the exercise by the Board of their reasonable power depends entirely upon the Commissioner's having a preliminary power (always under strict conditions) to reserve the land until the decision of the Board can be arrived at. Suppose that, if such power be not conceded to the Commissioner, the whole object of giving the power to the Waste Lands Board may be frustrated, and the very prize which it is the object of the law to preserve for the public be snatched away before the Board can take the step necessary to secure it for them ? In such a case as the present—take the, extreme, case of a small number of large capitalist's, applying for the whole or for the bull; of the richest reefs or alluvial deposits in a gold-field':. is. it better that a Commissioner should be obliged to, pass it all; away front the. D v ui»lic info the hands of a few individuals, because he may not. reserv.e it till the decision of the Waste Lands Board can be obtained, thap that he should, have power at. liis discretion to .refuse it for that short interval? L have'no doubt myself on the subject. In short, the whole question resolves itself into one between the use and abuse of a power—the first of which may be highly beneficial, the last mostf pernicious. Sut luMwgtiu tfwni qwtioatf th* policy of

j giving discretionary- power of this kind, there recurs i the argument that the law in the present case does b not expressly give, that preliminary power. I hare t a strong-opinidn that, if-the case-were fully argued i > before the Supreme Court, the position might still be found tenable, that, where the opportunity for the exercise: of a power expressly.'given for a most important object,.could only be.praperly secured by inferring a minor and accessory power in the 6ame ox some person, such power must be held to be implied by and iucluded in the one expressly given. lam aware that the late Mr. Justice Stephen gave a decision .excluding such an infererioe in case of land withheld from sale by myself, but, the case was not fully argued before the Judge, and Ms own decision in? volves statements either at variance with the' facts of the case which he had not been informed of, or are really altogether beside the question actually at issue. My opinion on this point is certainly that the power ought to be held to be in the Commis* sioner of Crown Lands constructively or by inference. But it is of less consequence that this opinion be decidedly given, because whether the Commissioner had or had not any such discretionary power, it is certain he did not attempt to exercise it, so that were it proved ever so' clearly to have been possessed by him the state of the present question would not be affected thereby. ■ • , • - I return now to the main question, that of the sec? tion requiring the classification of lands. The argument in favour of the purchasers, I repeat, is, that the land sold not having been-formally withdrawn from sale by the Board, and not having been formally classed under either of the first three heads, viz., Town, Suburban, or Mineral Land, necessarily fell into the remaining class of " Rural Land." Mow upon .this I have only to remark, that the. argument being good, as" I think it is, with respect to placing land under the first three classes, is equally good, and absolutely must be made applicable to the fourth class also. It is clear to me that if the formal resolution of the Board is required to make land town, suburban, or mineral land, it is equally required to make it rural land; that is to say, that whenever any land is to be determined as rural land by the mere omission to classify it under other heads, that omission must occur in or with respect to some distinct and definite act of classification duly undertaken and duly recorded—omission and all —by the Board. The Board, to explain further, must have recorded a classification of all land, say witlliiu a district denned clearly by certain outside'boundaries. Within these boundaries it may classify certain portions of land as the sites of towns; certain other portions as suburban lands; other portions, again, detached or not, from all the others, as mineral lands. ' Then, supposing within the whole so defined, distinct portions of land were left not expressly specified as belonging to either of the three classes.of land above named, all such unspecified portions would then, by the operation of the clause of the Act, by this mere omission to classify, become rural land. I cannot see how it is possible to avoid or evacla the construction of the Act. Either every part of , the process of classification requires the distinct action of the Bqard, or no part of it does. If land may be considered classified by the mere operation of the Act itself, without the action of the Board, in any one of the classes, it. must be so ih all'of them. If the clause can effect classification with respect to rural land, then it does so with respect to mineral land. If, because the Board has not expressly, declared certain lands mineral, it must be by the clause itself made rural, then the clause itnoif is equally powerful, without the interference of the Board, to place all land supposed to contain minerals under the head of mineral lauds. You cannot adopt one principle of construction with respect to three ■ members of the sentence constituting the clause, and another different principle with respect to the fourth or fifth member of the sentence. I hope I have made this clear. And now I will repoat it All lands must be subjected to and recorded as having been subjected to the operation of the Board before they can be considered as having been formally clas- | sified, and brought consequently under the operation of any regulations, of the Act for the disposal of any particular class of such lands. The omission to classify must be as distinct, formal, and intentional an Act of the Board as any positive Act of classification, and as distinctly recorded as such. It will not do to say, the Board has never had under its consideration some out-of-the-way portion of the province, and therefore this portion is classified as rural land. Such land must clearly have been shown to have been included within the boundaries of a district what the Board has expressly had, and recorded its having had, under its consideration for the purpose of classification, and to have been intentionally left out of the three specified classes of land., before it can fall under the provisions applicable to such cases of omission. This reading of the clause, obviously correct, as if; seems to me, might be supported—if necessary—by the fact that it renders the rest of the Act intelligible and consistent both with itself and the avowed [ general policy of the Legislature in framing it and other similar Acts. On any other reading, you are driven into the conclusion that the Act involves this absurdity, namely, that anyone at any time since it came into [ operation might have compelled the Commissioner to sell to him at £2 per acre, the whole of any town site, however valuable for instance, snpposing any such to have existed, merely because it had not been actually classified as such previously by the Board; and this might have been done at the very moment the Board was engaged in framing the words of the resolution under which it would be classified and withdrawn from sale. Again, by this reading you can avoid altogether the necessity for inferring any preliminary power on the Commissioner of withholding land until the Waste Lands Board had decided upon it, because he would simply have to reply toan applicant to purchase. " This land has not been classified, and does not come under the regulations under which you claim to purchase it." And it avoids all the gross inconsistencies which would otherwise be involved in an act, which obviously intended to preserve from sale the richest gold lands, would nevertheless contain provisions so framed that any one could snatch away those lands, while the clumsy machinery for saving them was being got into slow and and ineffectual motion. , If an interpretation of an Act, besides being consistent with the strict meaning of its letter, avoids infraction of its obvious intention and spirit, which would be involved in a different interpretation, I think it is clear that the adoption of the first is imperative. Acting, then, upon this construction of the Act, I have searched through the volume of minutes of proceedings of the Waste Lands Board ftjpni the time this Act came into operation (1863) tothe time of the sales under consideration, and have been unable to find any resolution of the Board what could be construed into such a consideratioit of any district, including the Wangapeka, for the purpose of classification, as would justify the application of tha4th sub-section of Section 24 of the "Waste Lands Act," of 1863, to the lands in question ; and the conclusion, thence, that they have been classified thereunder by the omission to classify them under the other heads. The consequence, ia that, in my opinion, thes©= lands were not rural lands, not having been properly classified as such. That, not being rural lands, they could not be legally sold under the provisions for the sale of rural, lands, and that the sale of them wa& therefore illegal. If this view be correct, it renders of little consequence the solution of the previous question as to whether tho lands are included withinthe boundary of the South-west Gold-fields, which was left undecided, , I have now, in conclusion, only once again to remark that the above arguments, and the conclusion they seem to tend to, constitute simply an opinion— of no authority over the rights, or supppsed rights, of any one; and that the only power which can authoritatively pronounce upon such right* and interests ia the Supreme Court of the colony, subject itself to appeals, if necessary, to higher tribunals. These are the only authorities which can deride 'ultimately what that law is, which- we trust always .to tee maintained paramount in. this colony"of Eng* li&'iptkiiifaife ■/.., ,