QUOTESAMANhi is not a coherent part of the text and seems to be an error or unrelated to the content that follows. The text appears to be a historical document discussing land reclamation and assessment of rents in Hong Kong.
Their land. The
The only doubt I have is as to their doing it properly.
My answer to the second question is this. All reclaimed land - whether already reclaimed or to be hereafter reclaimed - and whether by the Marine Lot Holders or by the Government - ought to be assessed at a certain rent. On payment of that rent, the holders of the "Marine Lots" lying behind ought to be allowed to become Servants of it according to their frontage, and, in the event of any of them refusing those terms, the reclaimed land in front of his Lot might be sold to anybody that will buy. But, considering that the actual rents payable by Marine Lot Holders vary very much - indeed from £20 to about £250 in respect of the same extent of property, I don't think that the rents they now pay would afford a fair criterion for the assessment of the rents payable for the reclaimed lands. I think that a much fairer rental would be the price at which the lands were sold at the last sales for building purposes.
I would assess all the reclaimed lands in the hands of holders of European lots at one rate. In favor of Chinese holders, I would make some distinction. The property which they now occupy does not pay anything like the same rents paid by Europeans. I had rather not commit myself to any precise proposition, but I am decidedly of opinion that it would be hard to make them pay the same rents as the European holders of reclaimed lands. I think that a general rule ought to be laid down; and that, if any person...
The original text has been corrected for spelling, spacing, and some minor reordering for clarity while maintaining the original tone and style. The reference "3459/9" appears to be a file or document reference and has been left as is.