376
form of agreement.
4.
Owing to the representations of the pier owners which were supported by the Hongkong Chamber of Commerce, it was considered advisable whilst raising the rents to reduce the rates fixed in the revised schedule.
5.
The representatives of the wharf and pier owners, whilst expressing themselves willing to pay the increased rents fixed in the revised schedule as amended rent, urge that compensation should be paid to the owner of any pier, the removal of which is required on public grounds.
3.
I have consulted the Acting Attorney General on the question of compensation, who advises that though the right of removal without compensation undoubtedly exists under the agreement between the Government and owners of piers, a copy of which is attached, the Government has never exercised that right hitherto, and probably would never do so, as such a course would be inequitable, however legally justifiable; and, further, he points out that in the case of the removal of piers under the Praya Reclamation Ordinance 18 of 1889, compensation was paid, which seems to create a precedent.
7.
Some of the piers at present erected and some proposed to be erected are expensive structures, and it is pointed