they have had siyeam
notice gette
getre intentio Hort. & shd han meder a rosmothe hid Ithey wished to mantan the service.
I do not accept the doctrine y vista interests
on which bit Bushe's numute is trued. To do so would
mutitate against progress in a direction where fort-control is required & has
the part not her exercised in the
I advise that the
Mr. Eisle
request the refused.
In view of the difference of opinion
batween Mr. Bushe and Sir E. Stubbs on the
doctrine of vested interests, would you kindly
let us have: your obsons ?
kes thells fox (maen 5'
A.E.C.
25.6.
Mr.Collins,
Mr. Grindle.
This question of "vested interests* is
I think entirely one of public policy.
Persons who lawfully establish and
develop a certain undertaking in a Colony are en-
titled to the quiet enjoyment of their undertaking,
but noone will deny that it is competent and proper
for the local Government to procure legislation
controlling and regulating such an undertaking as a
ferry service in the general interest of the public.
The
53
The Ferries Ordinance, 1917, applies to all ferries in
Hong Kong except the service of the Star Ferry Company
and though it provides for regulations (inter alia) "for granting exclusive rights fer maintaining ferries"
it certainly contemplated the issue of more than one
licence under its provisions. In his report on the
Ordinance moreover the Attorney-General said that
section 3 would "enable the regulation of the various
ferries which require varying treatment to be taken up
piecemeal" and would "facilitate the separate handling
of ferries which call for distinct treatment".
He
also said that its main object was "not revenue but
the interests of the travelling public". On the face
of it the Ordinance was salutary and was sanctioned
without comment.
The Government have used the Ordinance to
put up a single exclusive ferry licence to auction
so as to create a monopoly and have sold that monopoly for a large sum (notwithstanding the Attorney-General's statement quoted above) to a Company other than the
petitioners. Their object has been to "break the
ring" and obtain money for wharves for the new service.
Quite recently a somewhat similar question
much
of policy arose in Nigeria where Sir F.Lugard proposed to use the local Piers Ordinance to the same purpose, 1.e. to give a practical monopoly, but in that case
not to one undertaker as against another, but to secure it for the big Government wharf scheme at Apapa
when completed.
He proposed to use the Ordinance so as to
give the London Kano Trading Company who had bought
the German firm of Gaiser's land a licence limited to
handling only their own goods and produce at their pier, notwithstanding that the river frontage and all
its incidental advantages had been much advertised
before