54
in question and that therefore no compensation
was payable. The Chinese case was based on
two contentions: 1) that the space was required
for works of public utility and 2) that, since
the two companies could not produce title deeds,
they had no valid claim to the properties, and
no compensation could be payable. This second
argument was strongly contested as being
contrary to custom and international law, and
ultimately a compromise settlement was effected
in each case.
Without knowing the terms of the proposed
Hongkong Bill, it is difficult to draw any
conclusions. The position to-day in China is
very fluid, and any action at Hongkong would
certainly be quoted as a precedent, if
expedient. In general, the preemptive right
of the riparian owner over accreted or
reclaimed land in front of his property is
admitted (e.g. Swatow), subject to liability to
expropriation with due compensation for public
works (according to international law). On
the other hand, at Shanghai the City Government
have, in the cases of Butterfield and Swire and
Asiatic Petroleum Company, tried to establish
two principles: 1) that no riparian owner has
any right to foreshore unless he can produce
title deeds, and these may be issued, or not,
at the discretion of the local authorities.
2) that ownership of riparian property does
not imply right of access to the water, and
that