591
9. As the matter now stands, the Hongkong Government has received into the Public Treasury the suin of $133,500, proceeds of sale of reclaimed land in front of our Marine Lot and $15,000, for the right to erect a pier in front thereof, amounting together to $148,500 out of which has been paid $32,897 for cost of reclaiming land, besides some interest thereon, and it is now proposed to pay us only $24,367 leaving without deducting interest, the sum of $91,236 to credit which I submit would have belonged to us or as a matter of right the land in question after paying cost of reclamation had we not believed proper compensation as defined by Governor Des Voeux would be awarded to us.
10. Thus, if such a settlement were allowed to stand we should not have re- ceived any compensation for our valuable Marine Lot, the $24,367 now awarded not covering loss of rents but an act of confiscation would have been perpetrated which no Minister of State of the present day would sanction knowingly.
I have, etc.,
(Sd).
THOS. HOWARD..
A 7. 25299/1904.
T. HOWARD, Esq.
DOWNING STREET,
28th July, 1904.
SIR, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant with regard to your claim for compensation in respect of Hongkong Marine Lot No. 184 and to say that the decision given by the Governor as arbitrator must conclude the matter.
2. To set out all the points in detail would only be to invite further argument and correspondence on the case. There must be finality in the inatter and there- fore Mr. Lyttelton regrets that he cannot add anything to his former letter and must regard the correspondence as now closed.
A 8.
I am, etc..
(Sd).
H. BERTRAM COX.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE,
COLONIAL OFFICE.
7 CASTLE TErrace, COWES, ISLE OF WIGHT,
1st August, 1904.
SIR, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of letter, No. 25299/1904, under date 28th July written by Mr. 11. Bertram Cox, by direction of Mr. Secre- tary Lyttelton, informing me that the decision given by the Governor as arbitrator in the matter of compensation for our Marine Lot No. 184 must conclude the
matter.
2. To conclude the matter before compensation has been properly ascertained and paid, and to refuse my request to have it ascertained upon the principle laid down by Her late Majesty's Government in 1857, which principle is in accord with that of the Imperial Legislature of the present day, is not what I expected from the representative of His Majesty, the fountain of justice.
3. For the first time it is now admitted that the decision of the Governor was given as arbitrator, and Chief Justice Sir John Carrington has stated that the Attorney General of Hongkong very properly admitted 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 Mr. C. A. Cripps, K. C., has said that on the admitted facts, the Chief Justice should have set aside the Award.