R
40870
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE
C.O.8
Reference :-
-885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No. 161.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Right of the Eastern Shipping Company to occupy a portion of the foreshore of the River Prai.]
SIR,
Law Officers' Department,
Royal Courts of Justice, 23rd December, 1912. We were honoured with your commands, signified to us in Mr. H. J. Read's letter of the 22nd May last, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us the accompanying printed statement of the case of the Eastern Shipping Company, Limited, with regard to a licence granted by the Governor of the Straits Settlements, in June 1909, to enable the Company to occupy a portion of the foreshore of the River Prai, at Penang. That the statement of the Company's manager and the correspondence to which reference was made at the end of the Company's statement were also transmitted to us.
That it would be seen that the Company had obtained Counsel's opinion that the conditions inserted in the licence were wholly unconstitutional and invalid.
That the opinion of the Colonial Attorney-General upon the licence, and copies
of the local Ordinances bearing upon the subject, were also forwarded for our information.
That in their Report of the 11th of November, 1899, the Law Officers of the Crown advised that English common law as to the foreshore applied to the Straits Settlements, subject to modifications required by local customs."
That you would be glad if we would take the papers into consideration and
advise :
(1.) Whether the conditions (or any of them) contained in the licence were
illegal or void?
(2.) Whether, as the result of our answer to the preceding question, the licence
granted to the Company was wholly or partially valid or invalid?
(3.) On what conditions licences in respect of the foreshore might be granted at the present time in view of the Law Officers' Report of 11th Novem- ber, 1899, and the local legislation now in existence?
(4.) Whether the suggestion of the Colonial Attorney-General in paragraph 17
of his opinion dated the 18th of March, 1912, might properly be adopted?
(5.) Generally.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your
commands, have the honour to
Report-
(1.) and (2.) That, in our opinion, the conditions contained in the licence are legal and valid, and the licence, with the conditions, is one which the Crown could legally and validly grant, assuming that the works done thereunder do not amount to a public nuisance. The question as to the validity of the licence is dealt with by us in answer to Question 5 hereafter.
(3.) There is nothing to prevent any conditions being attached to a licence in respect of the foreshore which do not involve an infraction of law on the part of the grantee in the performance thereof.
(4.) Yes. (5.) We desire to point out that the document issued to the Company does not appear to us to be effective as an exercise of the Royal Prerogative to grant a licence. It amounts to a disposition, though a temporary one, of Crown land and, assuming that the present form of Letters Patent is the same as that mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Report of the Attorney-General of the Colony, such a disposition can only be made
(28046-3.) Wt. 91-591. 26. 213. DS.
2