As possible none of the main points set forth in my letter of the 20th November last.
671
3. The reference to Sir Matthew Nathan was whether further compensation could justly be paid to us, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the strict legal rights as defined by the Reclamation Ordinance and the Courts of Law.
Under the Ordinance Governor Sir William des Voeux, who passed it, in his message to the Legislative Council wrote, that the frontage Lot holders are strictly entitled to compensation only in respect of the actual depreciation of their property by the Reclamation in front of it, but by the provision in question (Compensation clause) there can be taken into account the moral claims, so that instead of being a hardship to the dissentient lot holder, the clause in reality will operate for his protection.
He also wrote that it is needless to say that the Government had no desire to accord other than the fullest justice in respect of private rights.
Mr. C. A. Gribble K.C. has written that the Award being under the Ordinance the Governor is bound to decide upon proper and legal grounds and not in an arbitrary manner.
Justice P. Holding Clarke stated that it was within the competency of the Hongkong legislature to modify, alter, and even destroy existing rights; though of course the greatest care should be exercised that no injury be inflicted without adequate compensation.
Chief Justice Sir John Carrington endorsed this, and added that although the legal right is taken away it cannot but be a point of honour with the Governor to pay full regard to the moral right.
Attorney General Goodman stated before the Full Court, on the 30th March 1898, that the Government had not said that