651
www
GO
Our inspection was made at low water ordinary spring tide at 2:57 p.m. We found that the foreshore was exposed to view taking a line from the East boundary of Godowns 23 feet, on the West boundary 22 feet, and some 36 feet in the centre of Godowns (see sketch plan attached). The foreshore consists on the West side of stone, sand and mud; in the centre of stone and sand (here there is a ridge of loose stones extending some distance outwards forming a barrier which we understand was the original filling under the old wharf which has recently been removed) and on the East side almost entirely of fine sand; the Reclamation works commence about 40 feet from this boundary.
On the West of your Lot is a large drain running under Whitry Street, also a Nallah a little further West, both of which we should imagine would discharge a considerable amount of sand and mud after heavy rains.
By reference to the Plan it will be seen that the Reclamation works extend outwards 260 feet at right angles from the old Praya, and as the end of works is only 10 feet from your East boundary there is thus a regular pocket formed between these works and the stone barrier before mentioned; that there might have been a certain amount of silting up of the foreshore on the West side of the barrier we can understand, but on the East side the whole foreshore being originally free, the deposit would be naturally carried further along or equally distributed along the whole front, but the Reclamation works have effectually stopped this distribution.
And it is our opinion that from the date of the commencement of these works that the foreshore would tend to silt up owing to the effect of the tide eddying in this particular spot and the works themselves must have also caused a large amount of earth stuff to find its way into the sea and thus considerably accelerate the deposit on foreshore.
We are also of the opinion that any earth, &c. carried into this pocket would naturally be deposited close along the sea-wall, and that there might be no perceptible difference in the depth of the water along the line of the front of the new wall, while there was a very considerable decrease in depth along the old sea-wall for some 20 or 30 feet out.
T. HOWARD, Esq.
No. 1893.
SIR,
Yours faithfully,
PALMER & TURNER,
Surveyors,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 17th September, 1895.
I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of 30th August, 1895, and the documents therewith submitted, and I am directed to inform you that the evidence in the possession of the Government differs very materially from that which you submit as regards the alleged silting up of the foreshore in front of Marine Lot 184.
67
Page 67
I am further directed to remind you that your position as regards any claim to compensation is defined by section 7 sub-section 6 of Ordinance 16 of 1889 as you are doubtless well aware.
In the circumstances His Excellency the Governor declines further to discuss the question of compensation until the construction of the Reclamation works actually in front of Marine Lot 184 may enable him to deal with the subject as a whole.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
T. HOWARD, Esq.
SIR,
Your most obedient Servant,
J. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Colonial Secretary,
HONGKONG, 18th September, 1895.
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 17th instant in reply to mine of the 30th ultimo.
1. I presume from the statement in the first paragraph of your letter that the Government has called for reports and obtained evidence as to the state of the foreshore since the date of my last letter. If so, I shall be much obliged if the Government will furnish me with copies of these reports and of that evidence. I cannot either reply to the statement or explain it, or admit that I have no case until I have seen them. Common justice requires that I should have the opportunity of meeting it.
2. As to your second paragraph, I may inform you that our claim is not exclusively under the section and sub-section you refer to, but is under the contract with the Government embodied in the Crown Lease of Marine Lot No. 184.
3. In view of the opinion expressed by the present Chief Justice in the case of Ryrie v. The Attorney General on the 24th November, 1890, that "the greatest care should be exercised that no injury be inflicted without adequate compensation," I cannot acquiesce in the statement that our position as regards compensation is defined by sub-section 6 of section 7 of Ordinance 16 of 1889, which leaves it in the absolute discretion of the Governor to give what he thinks fit to a Crown Lessee whose business may be ruined by his Marine Lot being converted into an Inland Lot.
4. Seeing that His Excellency the Governor refuses to dredge the foreshore, and declines to discuss the question of compensation until the construction of the Reclamation works actually in front of Marine Lot No. 184, I have now to give you notice that we shall hold the Government responsible for loss of rents we may sustain from the 1st proximo.
5. In order, however, to reduce such loss to a minimum, I have to ask if the Government will grant permission, at our own cost, to remove the sand and stones into deep water within the area of the projected Reclamation, to such an extent that boats laden with cargo can be brought up to our frontage at low water, reserving the question of repayment to the period indicated in letter.
Your
I have the honour to be,
The Honourable J. H. STEWART LOCKHART,
Colonial Secretary.
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
THOS. HOWARD.