Despatch to 168 of the 15th on file: 13502/85. The Way.
Phines all to the Legislative Council is dealt with on file: 2605/85.
Department. Please acknowledge.
15/2 GUR157e6. The despatch transmitted the Peer and Godown Admin with a copy that bonances EW EW 16.2 See 514 in bound Volume herewith; Ord. 11/2, which is a spare copy of Ords in the Volume marked "referred to by implication the Pier + Godown to being in existence".
Sanction Adinances. 13, 14, 15, 16, Ord. 17 was empowering a somewhat similar Act was enacted in 1871. A Company to construct a Pier in another part of the Harbour - but the Company seems to have been foiled.
There are material differences between this Act and the Ordinance 7/1871. Notably, the former provided that all vessels should have the right of using the wharf at the Company's prescribed rates on prior application subject to the Company for cases of urgency.
No such provision is contained in the present Ordinance, and there appears nothing to prevent Mr. Johnson from giving preference to his own vessels.
By the Order, the Company is required to post a list of rates in a conspicuous part. There is no penalty during the time such list was not so affixed.
It appears to me that the Ordinance is essentially a private Ordinance and that the former practice of exempting it from application without proof that adequate and timely notice was made by public advertisement or otherwise.
Mr. James intends to apply for the Bill, but it appears from the newspaper report annexed that the standing order requiring the Bill to be advertised 3 times in the Gazette between the 1st and 2nd reading was suspended, and owing to the circumstance that might have not thus met with the certificate what should accompany Private Ordinance it was given.
The Ordinance of 1871 appears to have been duly ratified and administered. If the Parliament had thought that some rule stipulation should have been...