COPY.
69
Honourable Colonial Secretary,
The Statement of the Captain Superintendent of Police shows that the foreshore was granted, presumably for a consideration, to Society, or Company, by the Chinese Government, and that title deeds are in existence.
The question then arises: Had the Chinese authorities the right to grant this title? and, if they had, are not the people in possession in the same category as people holding land under title deeds? Further, if they are, Is this Government justified in depriving them of their property, which seems valuable, without compensation? These are points that I should like the Attorney General to consider, for if we find these people in legitimate possession of property that we consider it advisable to alienate for public purposes, so as to prevent the continuance of a monopoly that must hamper trade and communication, it appears to me at present that the holders of the title are, while seized of it, as much entitled to compensation as would a person removed from the enjoyment of exclusive foreshore rights in the Colony not covered by a condition that the foreshore could be resumed for public purposes without compensation. In this matter it appears to me that somebody has a grievance, and we ought to get at the real facts and then do what is just. If this be done the difficulties as to the erection of a pier would disappear. Probably any pier erected at Sha U Chung would be destroyed by a Southerly storm.
(Signed.) H.A.Blake, Governor, 80.
23-9.