685
5. Your Petitioners rested satisfied that they could not be deprived of their said lease or of the benefits thereof, except by virtue of the said proviso and upon payment to them of full and fair compensation.
6. In and about the year 1889 certain proposals were laid before the Government of the Colony and the public for the reclamation from the sea, for the benefit of the Marine Lot Holders and at their expense, of the foreshore immediately outside the line of the existing Praya or sea road from the Military Cantonments to the east, to a point to the westward of your Petitioners' property, Marine Lot 184, and to facilitate the carrying out of this work an Ordinance, No. 16 of 1889, "The Praya Reclamation Ordinance, 1889," was passed and became law, by which it was provided that any lessee who should not, in the manner and within the time defined by the Ordinance, notify his acceptance of the scheme and his willingness to concur therein and contribute thereto should have no claim for compensation in respect of any depreciation of his lot by reason of the said works, but the Governor might, if he thought fit, award to him such a sum of money or such a Crown Lease of new land as he might in his absolute discretion think sufficient as and by way of compensation for any injury that such lessee should sustain by the works authorised by the Ordinance.
7. The meaning and intent of this clause was explained by the former Governor, Sir G. WILLIAM DES VOEUX, by whom the Ordinance was passed, in his Message to the Legislative Council on the 22nd March, 1889, before the passing of the Ordinance as follows: "It is needless to say that the Government had no desire to accord other than the fullest justice in respect of private rights; and though the provision in question has no doubt an arbitrary appearance, that aspect of it will probably disappear altogether from unprejudiced minds when the circumstances are fully considered." And further: "But by the provision in question there can be taken into account the moral claims above mentioned; so that instead of being a hardship to the dissentient lot-holder, the clause in reality will operate for his protection. If, however, there should prove to be any lot-holder who not only declines the agreement which has received the approval of the great majority and is embodied in this Ordinance, but also prefers to stand solely on his legal rights, it seems only fair that means should be found for enabling him to do so."
+4
46
8. Your Petitioners did not signify their acceptance of the scheme embodied in the said Ordinance, but objected thereto as the land to be reclaimed in front of their said Marine Lot, and to be assigned to them in the event of their concurrence in the scheme, was near the extreme Western end of the Reclamation and too small in area in comparison with the area of their said Marine Lot, and the profit to be derived therefrom bore no proportion to the loss your Petitioners would sustain during the carrying on of the said Reclamation by the obstruction of their access to the sea and by the immense depreciation of the value of their land and buildings, by the Lot being converted from a Marine to an Inland Lot.
9. Your Petitioners relied upon the promise made by the Governor of the Colony, SIR WILLIAM DES VOEUX as expressed in the Colonial Secretary's letter of the 23rd June, 1888, to MR. CHATER, forming part of the proposals hereinbefore referred to, defining the principle on which compensation would be awarded, that is, that the non-assenting Holders of Marine Lots on their conversion into Inland Lots by the works of the Reclamation, would be compensated to the extent of the difference between the value of their lots as Marine and Inland Lots; and also upon the provision in the said Ordinance for the payment of Compensation in accordance with the explanation of Governor DES VOEUX set forth in his Message to the Legislative Council on the 22nd March, 1889, referred to in paragraph 7 of this Petition and confirmed by him in the Legislative Council on the 29th March, 1889.
10. Your Petitioners humbly submit that the act of the Legislature in Hongkong as confirmed by the Sovereign in Council is the act of the Crown, and that the Crown does not derogate from its own grants or take away from the subject with its Legislative hand what it has granted in the exercise of its Executive functions without allowing full and fair compensation.
11. The profit to arise from the construction of the Praya Reclamation is estimated at several million dollars, in which the Government will largely participate from the reclamations in front of Government buildings and ground, but such large profits arise only in respect of the Marine Lots in Victoria Central, and the Eastern portion of Victoria West to the East of where your Petitioners' lot is situated.
12. The works of the Praya Reclamation under the Ordinance were commenced some time after the passing of the Ordinance, and in the year 1893 the works of Section No. 1 in which your Petitioners' lot is situated, were commenced from and including the greater portion of Marine Lot No. 185, immediately adjoining your Petitioners' Godowns to the East.
13. By reason of these works your Petitioners' Pier, to which Steamers and other vessels came up to discharge and receive their cargo to and from your Petitioners' Godowns, was partly destroyed so that steamers could no longer come up to the pier, to the grievous loss of your Petitioners' business and to the injury of their property as Godowns.
14. Your Petitioners, however, continued to carry on their business and to receive and discharge cargo from and into boats and junks which could approach the end of the pier, although so damaged as aforesaid.
15. In October, 1894, further damage was done to the remainder of the pier by a storm, and blocks of stone and earth were washed down from the adjoining reclamation works into the sea immediately in front of your Petitioners' Godowns, so that it became dangerous for boats to come near them.
16. In the month of May, 1895, your Petitioners, at the request of the Government, removed the remainder of the pier, and they were afterwards paid by the Government, out of the Praya Reclamation funds, the pier compensation to which they were entitled under the provisions of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance.
17. Your Petitioners then applied to the Governor, through the Colonial Secretary, that they might be awarded compensation for the losses they were sustaining by reason of not being able to receive and discharge cargo at low water, owing to the silting and the raising of the bed of the sea there, caused by the Praya Reclamation works immediately adjoining your Petitioners' property, and in answer to their applications your Petitioners were informed that their claim to compensation for injuries to their lot would be taken when the Reclamation Works were commenced immediately in front of your Petitioners' lot, and that until such works were commenced your Petitioners' claim was premature.
18. In the year 1896, as the loss to your Petitioners was becoming great, they applied to the Government that the Governor would assess to them compensation within the meaning of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, but your Petitioners' request was refused, and, acting under the advice of Counsel, they then commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Hongkong against the then Governor Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON, for an Order of Court to compel him to make his award in accordance with the Ordinance, but SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON
1
...