5746 # Kong
430
with the
Sir Moven
all work's interfering in any way foreshore or bottom of the harbor will not be projected
nor
plans sent home for
approval without the knowledge of this Government, which I am sure will be
glad to meet all reasonable requests,
it
now does in the Case of private applicants.
I have the honor to be, May Lout
Your obedient most obedient,
humble servant;
Kickers Graves Macdonnell
Governor
The question
in this case is whether the Naval &
Military authorities have a right to the shore between high water mark-
facie
There can, I apprehend, be no doubt that the Attorney General is right in his statement that the shore below high water mark is vested in the Crown. But the
question is whether the Crown rights to the foreshore
have
been granted away
The Attorney General in his opinion confines his discussions to
the
Customs Marine Lot which the Military authorities
took from Messrs. Is & Co. The terms
of the
Indenture remove all doubt, as it passes
"Land lying
on the shore at high water mark
But the Commanding Royal Engineer points out in his memorandum that he refers to the right between Was Department & Admiralty & to the foreshore in front of their property which was not granted by
the
Lease
From the letter of 1853 & plan thereto annexed,
7/1853 it would seem, however, that no
right to the
foreshore
Exists with respect to the cantilements there The term "Coast line" which I conceive
defines the foreshore clearly
means the high water line" is to be found in the letter, of the Admiralty bound by stores etc.
are placed at high water mark
It does not appear whether the Naval
authority have
any
land besides that held