9
264
"and indirectly, for the value of the lot 49 and the reclama-
"tion in front of it would be much diminished.
11
5. What the Admiralty apparently propose to do is to
"berth their coal ships parallel with the sea wall. This "necessitates keeping a great extent of frontage clear on each
"side of the berth to enable the ships to come alongside and
"leave the berth.
11 If the Admiralty own the necessary frontage to enable
"this to be done there can be no possible objection. If not
"they should adopt the universal practice in this port, whe re
"every foot of space on land and water is of enormous and "increasing value, and project their Coal Jetty at right angles
"to the sea wall.
13 6. I embodied this view in my telegraphic reply and I
"added that the Colonial Government would require premium and
"capitalised Crown Rent for the sea bed occupied by the Jetty.
I have &c.
12
n
(sd.) Henry A.Blake
Governor."
The very large sum of £113,442 has been paid for this Kowloon site of which £4,696 was a payment to the Colonial Govern- ment for Crown Rental. The attached plan shows the site and the
proposed pier.
The Admiralty contention is that they are entitled to erect their pier opposite their own frontage without payment for fundus, and in the manner they think best, provided they do nothing to inter- fere with the general use and navigation of the harbour. They also think that if the owner of the adjoining frontage wishes to construct
a