630
Appendix Nos. 10
and 11.
Mr. HOWARD thereupon wrote to the Acting Colonial Secretary the letters of the 30th October 1891 and 4th November 1891 set out in the Appendix hereto (Appendix Nos. 10 and 11) claiming the sum of $16,000 as the then value of the Pier and cost of removal. In reply to these letters Mr. Howard received the letter of the 10th November 1891 from the Acting Surveyor General Mr. F. A. COOPER also set out in the Appendix (Appendix No. 12) in which the Acting Surveyor General stated he was directed to inform him (Mr. HOWARD) that there was no objection to his removing the Pier at as early a date as he might think fit but the actual compensation to be given to him could not be settled pending the settlement of the compensation to be given to other Pier Owners. And in conclusion to further correspondence on this subject the following year (1892) the Colonial Secretary the Honourable G. T. M. O'BRIEN wrote to Mr. Howard the letter of the 5th July 1892 (Appendix No. 17) informing him that no apportionment of the block sum of $180,000 in respect of compensation to Pier and Wharf Owners could be made until either an Ordinance in that behalf had been passed or all the parties concerned had bound themselves by a deed of agreement approved by the Government to submit to arbitration in respect of their several claims.
Appendix No. 17.
Appendix Nos. 18
to 29.
Appendix No. 19.
The Praya Wharves and Piers Ordinance was passed in 1893 under the circumstances already mentioned and your Petitioners relying upon the correspondence before referred to naturally believed that as soon as the six months from the date of the publication of the Table of Compensation had expired as required by that Ordinance they would receive the compensation to which they are entitled under the Praya Reclamation Ordinance 1889 and your Petitioners therefore took no further action in the matter.
His Excellency the Governor however has now refused to pay the amount awarded to your Petitioners notwithstanding the letters of the Acting Surveyor General of the 10th November 1891 and the Acting Colonial Secretary of the 24th October 1891 and the Colonial Secretary's letter of the 5th July 1892 before referred to and the correspondence between your Petitioner M. J. D. STEPHENS and the present Acting Colonial Secretary the Honourable J. H. STEWART LOCKHART relating to this refusal is set out in the Appendix hereto (Appendix Nos. 18 to 29). From this correspondence your Lordship will observe that His Excellency the Governor has stated two reasons for the non-payment.
The first reason is given in the Acting Colonial Secretary's letter of the 2nd May 1894 (Appendix No. 19) and that is that the reclamation in front of Marine Lot No. 184 has not yet been commenced and that inasmuch as the Pier for which your Petitioners claim is not situated in any portion of the reclamation actually in course of construction the sum apportioned to your Petitioners as the Owners of the Pier is not payable until six months after the commencement of the work on the portion of the reclamation opposite Marine Lot No. 184.
The second reason was not given to your Petitioners until the Acting Colonial Secretary wrote his letter to Mr. STEPHENS of the 22nd May 1894 (Appendix No. 24) and that is that your Petitioners' wharf or the greater portion of it still stands and is in daily use.
Appendix No. 24.
26 and 28.
Your Petitioners have pointed out in subsequent correspondence with the Acting Colonial Secretary that the circumstances or facts alleged upon which these reasons are founded are altogether erroneous (Appendix Nos. 25, 26 and 28) but your Petitioners still remain without redress.
Your Petitioners therefore respectfully draw your Lordship's attention to the following points viz.:-
(a) Your Petitioners are absolutely entitled to the sum of $22,063.79 portion of the sum of $180,000 provided by the Praya Reclamation Ordinance of 1893 as compensation to Pier and Wharf Owners and Occupiers for the loss or disturbance of their Pier, that loss having then already occurred.
(b) Such sum of $180,000 has been provided by the Marine Lot holders alone under the provisions of that Ordinance and the Government is a bare Trustee with the only duty to pay that sum to the parties entitled.
(c) The time arose for payment to your Petitioners so long ago as November 1891 when the Reclamation Works damaged and disturbed the Pier and the greater portion had to be removed so that the Pier could no longer be used for the very object for which it was constructed namely the landing of cargo and passengers from steamers, and payment would then have been made but for the difficulties arising in apportioning the sum of $180,000 among all the Pier and Wharf Owners and Occupiers.
(d) The Reclamation Works on Section 1 upon which this Pier stood were commenced before the damage to the Pier and although the surface of the reclamation is not yet brought in front of your Petitioners' Lot it is brought along the front of the immediately adjoining Marine Lot No. 185 and the foundations upon which the superstructure rests and the slopes and batters have been carried over and now rest on part of the sea frontage to your Petitioners' Lot and thereby occasioned the destruction of their Pier. To this extent the reclamation works have been actually commenced immediately in front of the Eastern end of your Petitioners' Lot.
(e) Your Petitioners respectfully submit that it is inequitable and contrary to the language and spirit of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance 1889 and the Piers and Wharves Ordinance 1893 which provide compensation to your Petitioners for the loss of their Pier and such loss having occurred upwards of two years and a half ago that your Petitioners should now be further delayed in receiving the amount awarded to them and the more inequitable does this appear to your Petitioners after the assurance of the responsible officers of the Government when the loss occurred that such payment would be made when the...