Assistance has been afforded by the Permanent Committee. Again, there were many who were turned out by the closing of these houses but who fled from them through fear of the plague. I do not think it would be possible to obtain any proper reliable evidence for the purposes of compensation of this class; indeed I think it would be impracticable, and I think that if these small interests were recognised in the Bill at all it would lead to the proceedings of the Board being unduly delayed, and protracted de minimis, about which the law does not take much care. I might also add that I find in the Straits Settlements Ordinance (which dealt with the power of the Crown to resume land for public purposes, but dealt also with the power of public bodies to resume for the purposes of undertakings) monthly tenants and tenants at will are expressly excluded from persons interested in respect to compensation. It was with that guide before me that I came to the conclusion that it would be best to exclude this particular class of persons, because practically it would be impossible to ascertain whether they had any rights or not, and it would invite false claims to be put forward.
Now let me say a word or two about sub-Section 2 of Section 5. A great deal has been spoken and written with regard to the constitution of the Board. As the Board at present stands it is proposed that the Governor should appoint one member to be Chairman, and I have no doubt that the Governor, looking at the desired constitution of the Board, will appoint a high judicial officer, one of the judges of the Supreme Court, to be the Chairman. The second representative is to be appointed by the unofficial members, and the third, as the Bill is now framed, by the owners. The object of course is to get as far as possible an impartial tribunal and to have a body which when once constituted will carry through the whole of the arbitration from beginning to end and from whom there is to be no appeal.
The judge would, I presume we will admit, be impartial, and the second member is to be appointed by the unofficial members of Council. Well, it may be said that they are in a sense interested to get a good person on the Board, in the one case to see that the ratepayer is not overburdened by too great compensation, and on the other hand to see that the owners of these lands are not too severely mulcted in the resumption. I do not think a fairer Board could be suggested when you add to those two persons a representative of the owners of this property. In all private arbitration one is nominated by one side, one by the other and an umpire is nominated by both. But this is not a private arbitration. This is what I may perhaps call a statutory Board, and the object of the Ordinance is to constitute it that no appeal will lie from it, and no appeal is allowed under the provisions of the Ordinance itself.
It has been objected that no judge should be a member because questions might hereafter come before him in the Supreme Court. I myself fail to see how any appeal could be presented in any shape or form when there is a direct prohibition that any appeal should lie from the majority. Therefore I submit with considerable confidence that it would be hardly possible to improve upon the constitution of the Board as it is now proposed.
There has been an additional clause put in the Bill—I do not know whether it is in the print before Council—another sub-section (5) to section 6. That section I should say deals with the duties generally of the Board, and empowers them to appoint such persons as they deem fit—who no doubt will be experts, or some of them experts—to make a survey and examination of the houses to ascertain their condition. That was said to be very inequitable because you have reserved no power under the section allowing the owners themselves to inspect these houses. It did not strike me as very inequitable because the owners had their representative on the Board and he could take care that the proper persons should be appointed to go and examine.
It is not a very difficult question, but I could not accept the stigma that the section was inequitable, and I thought it would meet any question if we gave the Chairman power, while these surveys are going on, to allow under his hand an inspection by any owner who might desire to take advantage of that clause.
With regard to Section 7 I do not think I need say much. You are all aware how this was originally framed. The Government was practically tied down, whatever the decision as to what eventually should be done, to do away with the Taipingshan area. That, however, has not yet been settled. I think I am perfectly right in saying that no final arrangement has been come to as to whether the area is to be destroyed although the evidence, as it is, tends to that very strongly. But I think His Excellency will agree with me that no final decision has been come to on the point.
It was then objected as regards Section 8 that the Bill did not provide a sufficiently long time to enable claims for compensation to be sent in, and it was suggested that six months ought to be the time allowed. Well, I must say that it does not seem to me that there is much in the proposal to alter it. To all intents and purposes owners will have six months—I will not say the bare three months before the primary survey and examination can take place—I should think it would take two or three months before the result could be known, and owners will be at least six months to send in their claims. There are very few who are absent from the colony—only three or four, I believe—or absent at such a distance that they do not know what is going on, and those absent have, I should say, their attorneys and agents, and they must have informed their principals long ago as to what was contemplated in respect to their property. Therefore I do not propose to admit any alteration from four months to six months.
Section 10 deals with the powers of the Board, and I have heard no objection raised to that section except to sub-section 2. Sub-section 2 deals with the question of the cost of arbitration. Now, that has purposely been left entirely in the discretion of the Board except in one instance. In that instance it provides that no costs shall be given against the Crown if the Governor shall have offered in writing, prior to any claim being sent in to the Board, to pay to any person interested an amount of compensation equal to or greater than the amount (if any) awarded to such person by the Board.
"No," they say, "that is not the way to deal with it; the Crown should in all cases bear the cost of arbitration." I must say, and I am sorry to say, that where you have to deal with Chinese I do not think you ought to tie down the Board in any hard and fast rule. All who are acquainted with litigant Chinese know that very often false claims are put forward on every occasion with the result that the proceedings are protracted indefinitely. And therefore it has been thought much more desirable except in specific instances to have the question of costs entirely in the hands of the arbitrators.
Section 12 provides that there shall be no appeal. I might perhaps refer to one other of the sub-sections of section 10. The senior unofficial member suggested to me that he did not think anything in the Bill provided for notice being given to the owners of the hearing of their claims to compensation, but if you look at sub-section 4 you will see that the Board has power to make and publish all such rules and regulations as may be deemed necessary for the conduct of all proceedings before it, and that, I take it, would cover any question of giving notice to claimants as to when their claims would be heard. I am perfectly certain that no Board would proceed ex parte on such an important matter. If the hon. member wishes for anything more clear I shall be happy to insert a few words when we are in Committee.
Section 13 deals with the mode of determining the compensation, and section 14 permits compensation to sub-lessees and tenants, and I believe is now altered in this amended Bill so as to meet the views of the unofficial members.
There is, however, one point to which I think I ought to refer. Very strong objection has been taken to no compensation being allowed for any furniture, fittings, mezzanine floors, cocklofts, partitions or articles in any house resumed under this Ordinance which have been removed, destroyed, or damaged during the prevalence of the Bubonic Plague by reason of any operations for the cleansing or disinfecting of any house. Now, that, I submit, was a mere accident of the plague; the destruction was absolutely necessary. No evidence was retained of what was destroyed; all these articles, so far as we may judge from the opinion of the doctors, were infected or filthy, and their destruction was necessary for the proper cleansing of the houses which were afterwards closed. This again, I repeat, if allowed, would invite false claims from Chinese which it would be impossible for the Board to decide without any evidence whatever, and therefore protection against having to pay compensation...
Page 133