THE HOKITIKA LAND DIFFICULTY.

West Coast Times, Issue 617, 16 September 1867, Page 3

THE HOKITIKA LAND DIFFICULTY.

(fbom the pbess.) A question of great importance, and, as it seems, of still greater difficulty, which has long been agitated on the West Coast, has at last come to a climax — we | mean the question of whether or no Hokitika is still a part of the West Canterbury Goldfields. It will be remembered that in January, 1866, the town of Hokitika was withdrawn from the goldfields by a proclamation issued by his Honor the Superintendent. • The question, of course immediately arose, in what position were holders of town sections placed by that proclamation ? Did Hokitika thereupon cease to be any parb of the goldfields ; or was the effect of the proclamation merely that of bringing the land so withdrawn under the Waste Lands Begulations ? The latter view was ably maintained in a letter that appeared in the " Press " on August 15. The question was, as we have said, a most important one ; for if the former view of the case is correct, directly the proclamation appeared in the " Gazette" the Goldfields Act ceased to have any force in Hokitika, all business became void, land held under such licenses could, in digger phrase, be jumped at any moment — in fact all law was at an end, and the population of the town were reduced to a set .of illegal squatters on Crown land. Practically affairs have been allowed to go on much the same as before. Existing licenses havo been respected, and, we believe.fresh ones issued, though the holders of the latter will clearly have a right to demand back their money from the Provincial Government, as having been paid for an invalid and useless, document. Meanwhile the whole subject has been referred to three successive Provincial Solicitors, who, like the Chancery barrister, have " made the case darker which was dark enough without," by giving three altogether contradictory opinions. One learned gentleman held that notwithstanding the proclamation Hokitika remained a part of the goldfields ; the second adopted a middle course, and while admitting that the town was no longer a part of the goldfields yet maintained that the business licenses taken out previously to the proclamation continued valid for the time for which they were granted; the third, the present Solicitor, is of opinion that the proclamation had the effect of completely withdrawing the land from the goldfields, and that Hokitika therefore stands on precisely the same footing and under the same regulations as to sale or occupancy as Christchurch. We must add that this opinion of Mr Strange Williams is supported by that of the Attorney-General. Now very recently a further proclamation was issued by the Deputy-Superin-tendent, throwing open for sale, at th<* price fixed by the Provincial Counciil, " all land within the township of Hokitika which at the time of withdrawal of such land from the goldfields was lawfully occupied, and had upon it buildings of the value of not less than L 25 sterling." The land is offered in the first place to " the persons in lawful occupation thereof, 1 ' but if not purchased within two months at the fixed price it is to be put up for sale by auction in the ordinary manner. Here again another question ariaes. In the event of a section holder having erected substantial buildings on his land, and the property being disposed of by auction, will the purchaser be obliged to make compensation for the improvements so effected ? Under the Goldfields Eegulations he would be compelled to do so, but the Waste Lands Eegulations do not contemplate a case of this kind, and as the proclamation was silent on the subject there was reason to fear that the claim for compensation would not be allowed. The people of Hokitika were naturally much^yklarmed at the prospect. A public was called to consider the matier, at which some strong resolutions were passed; ultimately the Goldfields Secretary, on behalf of the Provincial Government, consented to " permit those who might desire it to have their legally occupied sections put up to public auction, and to have the value of their improvements added." This is satisfactory so far ; but the permission of the Government, if not in accordance with the law, will be scarcely sufficient, and however convenient it may be to the original occupier, may very possibly be disputed by the purchaser. Besides, another Government, acting under other legal advice, might take a different view of the case. It appears too that there is a class of persons, occupiers of town lands, who will be hardly treated under this proclamation. Hokitika has been withdrawn from the goldfields now for nearly twenty months, during which time there has been no possibility of any new comer buying land in the town whereon to locate himself and carry on his business. Many persons have consequently settled on sections to which they nave no legal right, and have occupied them for a considerable time, putting up buildings on them and making other improvements, for all which they can claim no compensation not even the pre-emptive right within two months accorded to those whose occupation dates from the proclamation of January, 1866. This has given rise to an additional difficulty. It is urged that, it being entirely the fault of the Provincial Government that the town land has been locked up for so long a time, an act of injustice will committed to those holders if they are not admitted to the same privileges as their more fortunate neighbors. Altogether it seems as though matters had got into thorough confusion, and that legislation by the Assembly will be needed in order that the salo may be carried on to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.