825
the mercy of the Government, giving it the right to close the end of the pier, or to call upon Mr. Howard to remove it, or any part of it, at his own expense, and without compensation. But instead of that, Mr. Howard was permitted to retain the pier, and the full use of it, for as long as it would stand.
10.
When the Government granted the concession for the erection of the pier it certainly did not undertake to leave the sea bed undisturbed for a radius of, say 200 feet from the pier. Supposing the Government had, instead of carrying out the reclamation, erected a stone pier, or permitted a stone pier to be erected, opposite the adjoining lot, and had thereby caused Mr. Howard's pier to be distorted, in the manner in which it was actually distorted by the reclamation works, I take it that that would have been his affair. In any case, no trouble could have arisen, such as did arise, if the pier had been properly built.
11.
I consider that the effect of the carrying out of the reclamation works to the Eastward of Mr. Howard's premises, was on the whole beneficial to him. The reclamation sheltered his landing place from the prevailing winds, as well as from the prevailing current, which appeared to set Westward, along the old Praya wall, carrying probably at times some silt from the Sai-ing-poon Nullah, and from the beach (now covered by the reclamation), which extended nearly all the way from the nullah to Mr. Howard's premises. Doubtless, as a set off to this, some earth was washed from the reclamation during heavy rains, but as I have already stated, the sounding failed to show any perceptible shoaling from this cause, in front of Mr. Howard's lot. The temporary West end of the reclamation formed a sheltered landing place 280 feet in length, with ample space for stacking and packing goods, and I can testify that it was taken full advantage of by Mr. Howard's tenants.
12.
The work of depositing pierre perdue on the reclamation