58,5
X
2. The value of our Marine Lot No. 184 in the year 1895, before the Reclamation Works had been commenced in front of the Lot, was $282,000 the capitalised net rentals for the year 1895, with 10% added for compulsory sale, as stated by Messrs. Leigh & Orange, Civil Engineers. Land Surveyors. Architects and Valuers, and affirmed by them under Statutory Declaration. Appendix 6.
Both these gentlemen are well acquainted with the value of land and build- ings in the Colony, whether as Marine Lots or Inland Lots.
3. The value of the Lot, after the Reclamation Works had been brought in front of it, was $110,000, this being the amount for which it was sold on the 30th September, 1899, after every effort on our part to obtain the highest offer.
4. The difference between the two values is $172,000 and is not met by General Black's Award of $15,000.
5. Beyond the above, the Attorney General stated, before the Full Court, on the 30th March, 1898, that he would have no objection to Mr. Howard making such further claim as he could substantiate for intermediate damage caused by the alleged silting up of his foreshore during the period before the Reclamation Works actually reached the front of his premises.
6. This loss has been ascertained to be $25,142. (Appendix 7.)
7. Thus the losses upon what have been recognised as proper subjects of claim by Governor Des Voeux and the Attorney General amount to $197.142, and for this amount General Black, as Acting Governor, awarded only $15,000 and that too, without seeing, hearing, or giving us an opportunity of knowing upon what evidence he based his award.
8. Upon the conduct of General Black in this Award, Chief Justice Sir Jolin Carrington remarked in his Judgment as follows:-"It was very properly admitted by the Attorney General that if the Governor is indeed an Arbitrator under the Ordinance, some of the things which are stated to have been done by the Acting Governor cannot be supported and that the Court will be justified in interfering in the exercise of its general jurisdiction over subordinate tribunals." And at the conclusion of his Judgment, said: "Although the legal right is taken away, yet it cannot but be a point of honor with the Governor to pay full regard to the moral right and where such a right is alleged, I have no hesitation in saying that the claimant ought to be allowed a full opportunity of setting forth the grounds on which his alleged right rests, and also of knowing and answering any facts and reasons which inay be put forward in opposition to it."
9. With regard to the legality of the award, Mr. C. A. Cripps, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Morton W. Smith, our Counsel in the case, state:-"That the Acting Governor in deciding on the claim of your Petitioners under the said Ordinance was acting in a judicial capacity and was bound to decide on proper and legal grounds and not in an arbitrary manner and without hearing the case of your Petitioners or allowing them to know of and to answer the case made against them on behalf of the Government of the said Colony, and therefore on the admitted facts the Chief Justice should have set aside the Award.”
•
10. This moral right was recognised by Her Majesty's Government as far back as 1857, in the case of the Bowring Praya Reclamation, where, in instructions to the Colonial Government, it is said: While, therefore, the rights of the Crown and the interests of the public require that the claim of the Crown to such lands should be firmly maintained, a sense of justice requires that the equitable claim of the Holders of the Original Marine Lots should be liberally considered." Government Gazette, 7th March, 1857.
See
11. Possibly it is not known to His Majesty's present advisers that strenuous objections were made by ourselves, other Marine Lot Holders, and the local Press, to the Governor conferring upon himself by Ordinance an absolute discretion to give something or nothing to the Crown Lessee of a Marine Lot whose legal rights granted by Her late Majesty Queen Victoria had been taken away for a public purpose.