203
Hong Kong
$
1285
tong Kong
X
1289
Sir,
14
No. 14.
War Office to Colonial Office.
War Office,
12th January, 1892.
2. With regard to the last part of paragraphs 3 to 6, and of paragraph 10, of your letter under reply, Mr. Stanhope considers that it is desirable that the Government should decide on what basis Colonial Military Crown lands surrendered to Colonies should be valued for purposes of record. He cannot concur that arbitration should be resorted to, as in every petty transfer the Lord Chancellor, or other arbitrator, would have to take evidence in this country on the vexed question of local values in remote Colonies.
3. On the question of the proper basis of valuation, Mr. Stanhope's views will be found in the War Office letter* of 6th September, 1891,
1271 40248
He
and in paragraph 4 of War Office letter of 28th January, 1890. He can conceive no more simple plan than assessing the saleable value of the land at the time of its surrender; that is the asset which the Colony comes into possession of, and, if it sells the land, that is the value it receives. If it afterwards provides other lands, that is the value which would regulate its liability. If a lower value, viz., the value of a user, without definite limit, and which it would therefore be impracticable to assess, were adopted, a similar lower value would have to be assigned to the user of any lands subsequently provided by a Colony; the result would therefore be practically the same.
4. Even in the interest of a Colony, the contention seems to be unnecessary, seeing that, in the event of the War Department surrendering property, say, for example, 100,000l. fee simple value, the War Department interest therein being that of occupation, the Colony would only be required at a future date to hand over to the War Department, i.e., the occupation of a property of the fee simple value of 100,000l. ...The reversion in both cases would be to the Colony; and this aspect of the case appears to have been overlooked.
Sir,
No. 15.
RALPH THOMPSON.
Colonial Office to War Office.
Downing Street,
10th February, 1892.
4. As regards the second paragraph of your letter, his Lordship regrets to find that he has not made his intention clear, as he did not mean to propose that an arbitrator should go into questions of local value, but that, be the value large or small, he should be asked to lay down a principle on which to apportion, as cases arise, the share which the War Department may claim in respect of its occupation, and the Colonial Government in respect of its reversion; as, for instance, that the occupation represents one-third of the saleable value, and the reversion two-thirds, or whatever other proportion may seem fair under the circumstances. Mathematical accuracy is obviously not attainable in such a case.
* No. 11.
↑ No. 7.
15
5. Lord Knutsford concurs "that in the event of the War Department surrendering property, say, for example, 100,000l. fee-simple value, the War Department interest therein being that of occupation only, the Colony would be required at a future date to hand over a property to the War Department." But it seems to him that this may in certain cases mean something different to "the occupation of a property of the fee-simple value of 100,000l.” For under the 5th Section of the memorandum* enclosed in the circular despatch of 9th June, 1890, it might happen that the Colony would be called upon to contribute part or the whole of the cost in the form of a money payment for the construction of new buildings on other lands. And unless the money value of this is ascertained, his Lordship does not perceive how the amount is to be determined for which the Colony would be liable under the memorandum.
6. His Lordship believes that the point at issue could be raised on a joint statement of facts, which would place before the arbitrator the views of the two departments.
JOHN BRAMSTON,
Sir,
Enclosure in No. 15.
Lord Knutsford to Sir W. Robinson.
Downing Street,
5th February, 1892.
5. I am now in correspondence with the War Office as to the basis on which surrendered lands should be assessed.
Sir,
No. 16.
War Office to Colonial Office.
War Office,
23rd March, 1892.
With reference to your letter dated 10th February, 1892, forwarding copy of a despatch which Lord Knutsford has now sent to the Governor of Hong Kong, relative to the disposal of lands and buildings occupied by the War Department in that Colony, &c., I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to observe that it would scarcely be advisable to call in an arbitrator to settle a difference of opinion between the Colonial and War Offices. The Treasury would appear to be the proper arbitrator.
2. The case seems to Mr. Stanhope to be very simple. The Colony assigns to the War Department land for its absolute user as long as required for defence. As long as the War Department uses it, it is valueless to the Colony. A thing is only worth what it will realize on sale; and the Colony could realize nothing unless the War Department user were to cease. When the War Department frees this asset from its user, the Colony comes into possession of its full value, because it is then free to sell it at its fee-simple value. That is its value in the Colony; and that is the value to record. Should the Colony ever be called upon to expend money, it will be in no worse position than it was before the user of the property was surrendered. It will be in exactly the same position, which is the position recommended by the Contributions Committee, and accepted by the Colonial Office and the Treasury.
3. I am to point out that if the Colonial money be spent on buildings on sites not Colonial property, special terms would have to be made to meet such an exceptional case.
RALPH THOMPSON,
* Sub-enclosure in No. 9.
† No. 15.
?
1
203
Hong Kong
$
1285
tong Kong
X
1289
Sir,
14
No. 14.
War Office to Colonial Office.
War Office,
12th January, 1892.
2. With regard to the last part of paragraphs 3 to 6, and of paragraph 10, of your letter under reply, Mr. Stanhope considers that it is desirable that the Government should decide on what basis Colonial Military Crown lands surrendered to Colonies should be valued for purposes of record. He cannot
concur that arbitration should be resorted to, as in every petty transfer the Lord Chancellor, or other arbitrator, would have to take evidence in this country on the vexed question of local values in remote Colonies.
3. On the question of the proper basis of valuation, Mr. Stanhope's views Hong Kong ă will be found in the War Office letter* of 6th September, 1891,
1271 40248
He
and in paragraph 4 of War Office letter of 28th January, 1890, 185 can conceive no more simple plan than assessing the saleable value of the land at the time of its surrender; that is the asset which the Colony comes into It possession of, and, if it sells the land, that is the value it receives. afterwards it provides other lands, that is the value which would regulate its liability. If a lower value, viz., the value of a user, without definite limit, and which it would therefore be impracticable to assess, were adopted, a similar lower value would have to be assigned to the user of any lands subsequently provided by a Colony; the result would therefore be practically the same.
4. Even in the interest of a Colony, the contention seems to be unnecessary, seeing that, in the event of the War Department surrendering property say, for example, 100,0001. fce simple value, the War Department interest therein being that of occupation , the Colony would only be required at a future date to hand over to e to the War Department, i.e., the occupation of a property of the fee simple value of 100,0007.
...The reversion in both cases would be to the Colony; and this aspect of the case appears to have been overlooked,
Sir,
No. 15.
RALPH THOMPSON.
Colonial Office to War Office.
Downing Street,
10th February, 1892.
4. As regards the second paragraph of your letter, his Lordship regrets to find that he has not made his intention clear, as he did not mean to propose that an arbitrator should go into questions of local value, but that, be the value large or small, he should be asked to lay down a principle on which to apportion, as cases arise, the share which the War Department may claim in respect of its occupation, and the Colonial Government in respect of ita reversion; as, for instance that the occupation represents one-third of the saleable value, and the reversion two-thirds, or whatever other proportion may seem fair under the circumstances. Mathematical accuracy is obviously not attainable in such a case.
* No. 11.
↑ No. 7.
15
5. Lord Knutsford concurs "that in the event of the War Department surrendering property say, for example, 100,0007. fee-simple value, the War Department interest therein being that of occupation only be required at a future date to hand over a to the War Department." =x, the Colony would But it seems to him that a may in certain cases mean something different to "the occupation of a property of the fee-simple value of 100,0007.” For under the 5th Section of the memorandum* enclosed in the circular despatch of 9th June, 1890, it might happen that the Colony would be called upon to contribute part or the whole of r in the form of a money payment for the construction of new buildings on other lands. And unless the money value of x is ascertained, his Lordship does not perceive how the amount is to be determined for which the Colony would be liable under the memorandum,
6. His Lordship believes that the point at issue could be raised on a joint statement of facts, which would place before the arbitrator the views of the two departments.
JOHN BRAMSTON,
Sir,
Enclosure in No. 15.
Lord Knutsford to Sir W. Robinson.
•Downing Street,
5th February, 1892.
5. I am now in correspondence with the War Office as to the basis on which surrendered lands should be assessed.
Sir,
No. 16.
War Office to Colonial Office.
War Office,
KNUTSFORD.
8
1280
23rd March, 1892. With reference to your letter dated 10th February, 1892, forwarding copy Hong Kong of a despatch which Lord Knutsford has now sent to the Governor of Hong Kong, relative to the disposal of lands and buildings occupied by the War Department in that Colony, &c., I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to observe that it would scarcely be advisable to call in an arbitrator to settle a difference of opinion between the Colonial and War Offices. The Treasury would appear to be the proper arbitrator.
2. The case seems to Mr. Stanhope to be very simple. The Colony assigns to the War Department land for its absolute user as long as required for defence. As long as the War Department use it, it is valueless to the Colony. A thing is only worth what it will realize on sale; and the Colony When could realize nothing unless the War Department user were to cease. the War Department frees this asset from its user, the Colony comes into possession of its full value, because it is then free to sell it at its fee-simple value. That is its value in the Colony; and that is the value to record. Should the Colony ever be called upon to expend it, it will be in no worse position than it was before the user of the property was surrendered. It will be in exactly the same position, which is the position recommended by the Contributions Committee, and accepted by the Colonial Office and the Treasury.
3. I am to point out that if the Colonial money be spent on buildings on sites not Colonial property, special terms would have to be made to meet such an exceptional case.
RALPH THOMPSON,
* Sub-enclosure in No. 9.
† No. 15.
?
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.