662
Taking all these disadvantages (which have turned out to be erroneous) into consideration, still Messrs. Leigh & Orange say that, after the Reclamation, and considering its value as an Inland Lot, they still put its value at $2.50. Had they known that it was going to be used for Godowns (as it is used to the present day), I have no hesitation in saying that they would have valued it at considerably over that figure. The statement that no real damage was done to this Lot is correct, and this enormous loss, which the Claimants allege they have suffered, is based on purely hypothetical grounds. Therefore, as I submitted to Your Excellency before, the Award which was given by General Black was sufficient to compensate the Claimants, and that they are not entitled to anything further at the hands of this Tribunal.
I would like to add one more remark, and that is—that the Plan which has been put in by Mr. Boulton is entitled to far more consideration than the specula- tive evidence which has been put forth by the Claimants.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:--I desire once more to impress upon Your Excell ency the proposition I have already laid down, but I quote from the documents put in by my learned friend-[reads Extract from p. 3 of Governor Des Voeux's Message to the Legislative Council on the Passing of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, commencing 14th line from bottom.] Now, that is not mere speculation on my part.. You will find by reference to page 5 of Governor Des Vœux's Message [reads from Message again, page 5, para. 1.] It is very important in considering the moral right of the Claimants to remember that they had no rights of access, but only a common general right, which was enjoyed by everybody. All that they could be compensated for is the extra work entailed in the carriage of goods over the 260 feet which is the distance they have been put back from the sea front. Access to the sea was never cut off; there is now as much access to it as ever- there was. You must admit that the Claimants have not attempted to shew anything but an alleged depreciation, which is amply denied by Mr. Danby. I submit that you are not compelled to give anything more to Messrs. Howard and Stephens. The reason of this Tribunal sitting here, I submit, is to say whether or no. the Award of General Black was sufficient to meet all requirements of tliis case.
The
There is just one more word I would like to say, and it is with regard to a certain principle of compensation laid down by Mr. Frederick Stewart, Colonial Secretary, in 1888-[reads from 1903 Petition, p. 18.] That differs entirely from the principle of compensation to be pursued in the present case. principle stated by the Colonial Secretary was that compensation would be given for loss by depreciation. That principle is distinctly over-ruled in the Ordinance. I may say that this Government is in no way bound to add to the sun offered by General Black. In October, 1903, a further sum of $18,000 was offered, but that was simply on the basis of the Musso Award. We simply offered that sum with the object of buying peace. The Governinent made a very good thing out of the Reclamation, and they were prepared to give Howard and Stephens just as much as they gave Musso. The Claimants refused to take it, and came into Court.
Summing up for the Claimants.
Mr. CALTHROP :-May it please Your Excellency,-
This case now resolves itself into a claim for damages. As to the claim for consequential damages I wish to call Your Excellency's attention to the Petition in the proceedings before the Court, and the Answer thereto (Suit 94 of 1899). We claimed at that time the sum of $25,000, and we also went on to say that the value of the property was $200,000; that was in the Petition. The Answer is on page 5. In that Answer, at that time, they said the value of our property was only $101,000, but, at the same time, they said we lost something through diminution and they offered us $15,000, which I say is an admission that we suffered something considerable through diminution. Now they bring in Mr. Danby and Mr. Boulton, and both say that we did not suffer any loss during those years. I may point out to Your Excellency, in regard to that, Mr. Danby's last Report was made in March, 1896, and the last date Mr. Boulton has on the Map which he sketched is February, 1896. The last claim was in 1895, 1896, 1897 and 1898, and they did not come here to give us any evidence of what happened after March, 1896. It is certainly perfectly true that we base our claim to a very great extent upon what was said by the Colonial Secretary in his letter (on page 18 of the 1903 Petition), where-