٢١٤
3
318
326
thus, not only coutravening the principle so clearly enunciated by your Excellency "that the highest form of legislation is the carrying through of any necessary reform to the least possible hurt of the individual." but also grossly infringing the principles so soundly and distinctly laid down in the English Acts of Parliament and the decisions thereunder, as being the permanent guiding principles to be observed by all comers in connection with the acquirement for public purposes of land in private own ship.
6. That the compensation allowed and provided for by the Bill can only accrue in the case of the resumption by the Crown of land and houses for a public purpose, and then only under strangely limited circumstances, the result of which latter is to leave the owner of the land so resumed entirely at the mercy of those whose avowed object is to acquire by resumption a maximum quantity of land at a minimum amount of cost. This is aptly illustrated by the regulations laid down in sections 248 to 256 inclusive, particularly those con- tained in sections 256, which latter section entirely deprives those individuals whose lands have been taken from them against their wish by compulsion, of the one important right and safe-guard which they would otherwise possess, namely, that of appeal.
Your Petitioners observe with regret that for the compulsory sacrifice of space and land and the obligatory alterations of the structure of existing buildings as well as of those re-erected under the new set of circumstances, that will exist on this Bill coming into force, there is no provision whatsoever for compensation in a single instance. The reason for this, as stated in a paragraph in the covering letter of the framers of the Bill to the Government, dated the 14th day of May. 1902, is as follows:-
"With regard to the resumption of insanitary property many "blocks of buildings throughout the City of Victoria "will undoubtedly have to be gradually bought up by "the Government and the areas laid out in a more
LC
sanitary manner, more open space around each building being an especial desideratum in many of "the most congested areas, and we have accordingly 'incorporated in this Bill the clauses of the Crown "Lands Resumption Ordinance which
appear to follow "closely the provisions of the Imperial Housing of the Working Classes Act and to provide all the
64
16
*
necessary powers for the resumption of insanitary or obstructive buildings. In such cases compensation
for resumption is always given, but the Bill does not propose to offer compensation to the owners for the "erection of sanitary dwellings on land at present unoccupied, nor for the re-erection on land already occupied of dwellings of an improved type to those now in existence. The right of an owner of property
il
"to re-erect dwellings of an insanitary type because "his present dwellings are insanitary should not be "admitted."
With regard to the last three lines of the above quoted para- graph, your Petitioners would point out that the sentence there contained shows how grossly distorted is the vision with which the framers of the Bill have viewed the case of the compulsory acquire- ment of property so far as the owners' rights therein are concerned, in-as-much as every one who has had any experience whatever as to the acquirement of insanitary areas and houses knows full well that the principles for which the owners thereof contend, so far from including any contention of a right to re-erect dwellings of an insanitary type on the site of previously existing insanitary dwellings (a process which such owners are well aware would cost them dear) only extend to a contention, that provided they comply with the well known legal maxim "Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas" they have a right to utilise the site of insanitary dwellings for their own purposes without being compelled to dispose of it to a wealthy corporation for a comparatively small price-a principle which was recently thoroughly vindicated in recent insanitary area enquiry in the North of England, where owing to the enormous opposition encountered, the Local Authority had to entirely remodel their scheme, and thus recognise the undoubted rights of the pro- perty owners concerned.
7. That to refuse compensation to land owners for the erection or re-erection, on land already occupied of dwellings of an improved type as contemplated for the first time by the Bill is most inequitable, especially when the innovations and improvements insisted upon by the newly made law necessitate the giving up of valuable land and space, and the alteration of the nature and extent of the existing buildings.
8. That in Hongkong as well as in other parts of the civilised world, all buildings have had to be erected in conformity to the provisions and requirements of the Building and Sanitary laws in force at the time of their erection, so that it is by reason of the incomplete nature and extent of such laws that what are now con- sidered to be insanitary buildings have not only been permitted and authorised to be erected, but actually created and fostered by the Legislature. Having regard to this, your Petitioners consider that they have every right to ask, as they do, that provision be made in the Bill for the due and proper preservation of property owners' rights, including the right to compensation wherever their vested interests are disturbed; the right to the assessment of that compen- sation on a sound and efficient basis; and the right of appeal, not only as regards the compensation sought to be given, but also with respect to the right of the Government or other duly delegated authority to in any way acquire such owners' property. The right of appeal in respect of the last mentioned maiters is rendered abso- lutely necessary, by reason of the fact, that the present ordinance does not as the Housing of the Working Classes Act does, provide for any preliminary Scheme and Enquiry and Report upon the opposition (if any) to the Head Authority, and therefore, if left without a right of appeal in these respects, property owners would