CO129-298 - Governor Sir Blake Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne - 1900 [3-4] — Page 438

*

:

437

Secretary of State was properly made.

The Law at present in force is Ordinance No. 6 of 1883 as amended (as regards section 4) by Ordinance 18 of 1883; and it is the wording of that Ordinance(No.6) as so amended, which places the Government in an unsatisfactory porition in dealing with applications for Trawy rights over any of the routes specified in that Ordinance.

On comparing the Ordinances of 1882 and 1383, it will be found that the former Ordinance conferred upon the Company(as therein defined) direct rights of construction an meintenance (see section 3), while the latter recognised certain Promoters only (3 of whom Still Survive) and section 4 of Ordinance 6 of 1883, as amended by 18 of 1883 gave the right to these Promoters (with the assent, and approval of the Governor in

Council) to grant the right to construct. &c to a grantee, called in the Ordinance "the Company".

In the Ordinance of 1882, therefore, the Company was the grantee of the privilege and was interpreted, by the interpretation clause, to be "The Hongkong and China Tramway's Company, Limited and also (when not inapplicable) any assignee, Lessees or Lessee from such Company"; while in the Ordinance

of 1883, the Company (see substituted section 4) was the

grantee from the Promoters of the right to construct &c.

Obviously in a properly drawn Ordinance conferring

right of this kind, a time limit should be fixed for the

grantee to construct the Tramways authorised, otherwise on

failure of the grantee to construct in a reasonable time, other

people willing to carry out the work effectively might find

themselves hampered by a Monopoly granted to people who could

not carry out the work. As regards this.

Time limit

The Ordinance of 1882 was explicit enough. Not only were all1

compulsory