to me that it does not
respect, it appears support the contention of the Military
authorities.
It will be noted from the above mentioned Memorandum of Colonel Stores (which formed the basis of the arrangement of June 1887) that :-
(1) As Hansfer of land whatever is
Authorities ;
made to the
Military
121 to interference with the rights of
suggested, and
existing
Lessees is
(3) That no
objection is raised to new
leases of Garden lots being issued, provided
that such leases contain a clause by
which buildings could be prevented.
It will also be noted, from
the above quoted letter of the Colonial
Secretary consenting to that arrangement
that,
(4) Such
arrangement
was not
but was
intended to be a perpetual one,
only acquiesced in upon the
ground
that it was then absolutely necessary upon
Military
grounds that such restrictions against building within the reserve should be imposed.
619
It, therefore, appears that the above
arrangement
made in June 1887 in no
way prevented the Colonial Governmt from granting
new leases over the whole
of the Military
Reserves for garden
purposes,
but merely provided
that such new leases should contain a
clause against the erection of buildings.
It further appears that the restrictions
were
only
intended to
continue for so long a period
as such restriction continued to be necessary.
With regard to the above mentioned resolution of the Executive Council, passed in September 1887, I need only say that it is quite clear that that resolution does not confer upon the Military
any right of perpetual user of
the Military
Reserves.
I now pass
on to the Secretary of
State...