the live of
the Praya
Reclamation, did not
come within the category
of the Bills defined by
the Standing
no. 52 of the
Rules & Orders o
the
Legislative Council.
disposed to think 2. I regret that I zon were aranyl advised
a
ingrining that
ruling, as it appears
to
me
that whatever
have been the
may orignial rights a
abrence of rights of ther
&pier wharf holders, they have acquired by the
}
Finsert-
of Contract through frossilly not of Ioperty.
#
They conca no doubt Our
e for
buy dum awarded & them
if
not paid, but I stile Thinks there is no right of grofustig in the sum: no money has been set aside specifically for these persons. My minut was not as & the
pains of refusing the as their
Counsel, only as the legality of their demand, &b heart
Ms.16.9.92
agreement of the 156 lot-holder ratified
no. 16 of 1889
by the Ordinance
certain
interest rights &
property in respect
of the sum not
Exceeding $8180,
000
wh. is to be included in the cast of the works
mbed to then
and
Geany
by way of compensations that a Bill provide for ascertaining the amounts to by paicy in respect of
Each individual and pier
Bill
wharfholdes ashame of that food is Rearly affecting
individual rights"
if not ales interests of property.
I think therefore,
that