3.
102
desirable that on a point of this importance to all the riparian owners in the Colony, there should be an ordinary right to appeal to the Full Court and the Privy Council. The judge, in the first case he has, which may be a very small one and not properly put forward, will have to decide these legal questions and such decision would necessarily bind every subsequent claimant, however much he may be affected.
Provision should also be made for extending the time for a claim or reference, say by agreement, as negotiations may extend over the two months, notwithstanding which the claimant must ask for his reference within one further month.
Section 6 of the present Bill is based on Section 8
of Ordinance No.39 of 1909, but this Ordinance was dealing with specific work therein mentioned, and even in the sub- sequent reference to a judge under the 1909 Ordinance the Crown argued that Section 8 had determined the claimant's rights. The Crown failed in this contention on the ground that in other portions of the Ordinance there was provision for compensation by reason of the access to the sea being affected. (This is referred to in para.3 of the objects and reasons in the reference to Section 12 of the 1909 Ordinance). If the same contention is put forward under Section 6 of the present Bill, there is not the same answer as there was under the 1909 Ordinance, and it therefore appears to be desirable to make it clear in Section 6, that the rights of the claimant will only be extinguished as from the date of the definite approval of the works and without prejudice to any rights he may have had up to that time for the purposes of compensation.
I am to state that the Chamber is still strongly of opinion that there is grave objection on principle to the enactment of general legislation of the type proposed and