No. 1704.
SIB,
64
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Hongkong, 15th August, 1895.
I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant and to state that I have nothing to add to the correspondence which has already passed between you and this Office.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
J. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Colonial Secretary.
Boxerxo, 30th August, 1895.
Referring to previous correspondence on the subject of Marine Lot No. 184, and to the silting up of the foreshore in front of that Lot in consequence of the progress of the Reclamation works in the immediate neighbourhood, I have now the honour to forward the proofs you have asked for.
2. Since the date of your last letter I have submitted the whole case to counsel, and now on his recommendation send in the papers hereto annexed, which he advises constitute ample proof.
3. The Lot was purchased by us in 1884, and we obtained from the Government in that year a new Crown Lease, with a re-adjustment of boundaries. We proceeded at once with the erection of Godowns on the Lot, and of a Pier of a length of 305 feet in front of the centre of that Lot, plans of which were submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department in the usual form.
4. The Godowns and Pier were finished in or about the month of August, 1886, and have since been used for the reception of goods, and the business done by us as Godown-keepers since 1887 has been of the annual value of about $16,000.
5. In August, 1886, there was such a depth of water in front of our Lot that not only could we bring laden cargo boats alongside the Pier along its whole length, but we could, at all states of the tide and at all times of the day or night, bring laden boats close up to the sea-wall and unload cargo directly on to the Praya in front of our Godowns.
6. In November, 1891, the disturbance in the bed of the harbour caused by the construction of the pierre-perdue so seriously damaged our Pier that a portion of it was removed, and eventually the whole of it, for which compensation has been paid to us.
7. There was no apparent silting up of the foreshore until August, 1892, some months after the filling in of section No. 1 of the Praya Reclamation and the construction of the new sea-wall immediately to the Eastward of our Lot commenced, but after that time it began to silt up rapidly and we found it impossible, at certain states of the tide, to bring cargo boats up to the sea-wall and load and unload on and from the Praya as before.
8. Notice of this silting up was given to the Government by my letter of the 18th August, 1892.
9. This silting up has gone on increasing until at the present date some 23 feet of the foreshore next the sea-wall is totally uncovered at low tide, and boats can only be brought up to the sea-wall for a few hours during each working day, instead of at all times during the day.
10. We are now compelled to load and unload cargo some 100 feet further to the Westward, opposite to the Gas Company's premises at a considerably greater expense for coolie labour, and greater risk and waste of time in handling the goods.
11. If this silting up goes on, one frontage will be wholly inaccessible by water at all states of the tide and our Marine Lot will have been converted, for all practical purposes, into an Inland Lot and our Godowns will be useless for the purpose for which they were built.
12. I send you Notarial Declaration made by myself, Mr. Stephens, and my compradore Kong Chim, verifying the above statements as to the state of affairs in August, 1886, and as to the commencement and progress of the silting up.
13. I send also a survey Report by Mr. Palmer, of the firm of Palmer and Turner, Architects and Civil Engineers, with a plan and a photograph showing the existing state of the foreshore; and verifying my allegation so repeatedly put before you that the cause of the silting up is the Praya Reclamation and the works connected therewith.
14. With these proofs, I hope that His Excellency the Governor will at once give directions that the whole of the foreshore along the front of our Lot be dredged out to its original depth. The expense will be very trifling to the Government as it is in possession of Dredging Machines; but if these machines are not available for the purpose, we can get the work done, but not so effectually, by Chinese labour at the Government expense.
15. In conclusion, permit me to remind you that we are the holders of a Marine Lot under lease from the Crown, that the Lot had complete access to the sea by boats along its whole front at all states of the tide, that in consequence of the prosecution by the Government of extensive works in our neighbourhood, the foreshore has now silted up to such an extent that we have only access to the sea for a few hours on the average in each tide.
16. If any adjoining owner had caused this damage, the Courts would at once have restrained him or made him answerable in damages. If any private landlord had so interfered with our water frontage, he would be held by any Court to be liable for interference with our full and free enjoyment of the property demised.
I cannot, therefore, suppose for a moment that the Government will not do as complete justice as the Courts would undoubtedly compel any private person to do in the premises.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
The Honourable J. H. STEWART LOCKHART,
Colonial Secretary.
Your obedient Servant,
THOS. HOWARD.
HONGKONG, 29th August, 1895.
DEAR SIR,
As requested by you, we on the 19th instant, inspected the foreshore in front of your Godowns situated on Marine Lot No. 184 West Point,