3:00
3. 2 174
As to Mr. Lyttelton being satisfied that the sum of $24,367 now offered is adequate and equitable, I can only regret that he did not state his reasons for being so satisfied, for it bears no comparison with $172,000, difference in value estimated by Messrs. Leigh & Orange, which estimate is now, according to the actual sales, found to be understated, as pointed out in my letter to you of the 16th March last.
For the above reasons, I am again compelled to ask the reasons put forward by the Hong Kong Government against our claim, or that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will agree to adopt the course pointed out by Her late Majesty's Government in 1857 and let assessors be appointed on behalf of the Crown and the proprietor of the Marine Lot to ascertain the amount that should be paid to us; for, it is unfair that the settlement should be left to the caprice of one man or set of men interested on one side only who have no special knowledge of adjusting claims for compensation.
That we are entitled to know the reasons put forward by the Acting Governor of Hong Kong against our claim, is, according to Chief Justice Sir John Carrington, beyond doubt; and the necessity of knowing them is emphasized by the same authority in the following quotation;-
"It was very properly admitted by the Attorney General that if the Governor is indeed an arbitrator under the Ordinance, some of the things which are stated to have been done by the Acting Governor cannot be supported and the Court will be justified in interfering in the exercise of its general jurisdiction over subordinate tribunals."
That the Governor is an Arbitrator under the Ordinance is clear from the Award itself, which runs:-
"Under the powers conferred upon me by section 7 subsection #6 of Ordinance 16 of 1889, I hereby award to Messrs. Thomas Howard and M.J.D. Stephens, lessees of Marine Lot No. 184, the sum of $15,000 as, and by way of compensation for injury that they have sustained by the Praya Reclamation Works."
4.
5.
6.
H 9573