6
to accept his decision". It was then pointed out to the Solicitors (8th. September, 1904), at the instance of Mn. Sercombe Smith, the Puisne Judge, that he had already as a member of the Supreme Court delivered a dissentient judgment on the 29th. June, 1900
which was in favour of the validity at that time of the lease of
the Marine Lots at Lantac, and so adverse to the claims of their
Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist replied (20th. September, 1904)
that as the position of their clients in the present was somewhat
different from that in the former case, their clients were "quite
willing to accept the Fuisne Judge as sole Arbitrator in this
matter".
clients.
A submission to arbitration drawn out by the Crown
Solicitor and approved by the Fetitioners' Solicitors was accord-
ingly signed by me on the 14th. October, 1904.
7.
The Crown Solicitor has now reported (5th. January,
1905) that Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist have informed him that they
cannot get into communication with the petitioners and that the
latter have not signed the submission to arbitration. He suggests
that as these people show no intention of prosecuting their claim
the matter might ce silowed to drop.
६.
I am now satisfied that this course, may safely be
followed without fear of injustice being done. We know at present
without doubt that in granting the lease of the Marine Lots at
Lantac for the collection of shells and coral before the passing
of "The Foreshore and Seabeds Ordinance" No.15 of 1901, the Govern-
ment was only following the legal practice of the Chinese Govern-
ment, that this did not, as stated in the 18th. paragraph of the
petition, compel the petitioners to give up their occupation and
prevent them from earning their livelihood, but that such losses
that may have been incurred by those of the petitioners who were
owners of fishing junks, or employees having shares in the profits
were