593
2. I am further to remind you that the question whether or not this Ordinance was ultra vires was dealt with in the proceedings taken in the case of Ryrie v. The Attorney General of Hongkong in the year 1890 before the Supreme Court of Hongkong and that Mr. Justice Clarke at the conclusion of his Judgment in that case stated that in his opinion the Praya Reclamation Ordinance was within the competency of the Legislature.
This case was cited in the proceedings taken by you in the Supreme Court of Hongkong and Chief Justice Carrington stated that he fully endorsed the language used by Mr. Justice Clarke upon this point. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, before whom the matter was brought, refused special leave to appeal and expressed the view that under the terms of the section above set out the decision of the Governor was final, he having an absolute discretion with which no Court of Law would interfere. Under these circumstances Mr. Lyttelton does not under- stand how you can assert that you did not deem it expedient to raise the question of the validity of the Ordinance in the local Courts as you implicitly believed that justice would be done in respect of private rights taken away for a public purpose, or how this question can now be raised in any further proceedings which may now be open to you.
3. Mr. Lyttelton, hwoever, has again gone most carefully into the question, being anxious to remove, if possible, any grievance which your firm may consider themselves entitled to feel and purely as a matter of grace and without prejudice to the strict legal rights in this matter as defined by the Ordinance and the Courts of Law, he has decided to refer the question to Sir Matthew Nathan, the newly appointed Governor of Hongkong, for enquiry whether any further compensation can justly be paid to you, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and you will be at liberty to lay before him such further facts anil documents in sup- port of your case as you may think proper. But you must distinctly understand that the matter being one which under the terms of the Ordinance is within the absolute discretion of the Governor, Mr. Lyttelton will be unable to entertain any proposals for modification of the decision at which the Governor after such further enquiry may arrive, and that such decision must be taken by you to be a final settlement of the matter.
A 10.
[Hongkong, No. 240.]
Governor Sir M. NATHAN, K.C.M.G.,
&c.,
&c.,
I am, &c.,
(Sd.)
C. P. LUCAS.
&c.
DOWNING STREET,
9th August, 1904.
SIR, With reference to Mr. May's despatch No. 233 of the 30th of May last, I have the honour to transmit to you copies of further correspondence which has passed between Mr. Howard and this Department as to his claim for compensation in respect of Marine Lot 184.