SIR,
68
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 25th September, 1895.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th September, 1895, and in reply I am directed to inform you that His Excellency declines to furnish the copies you ask for.
As regards your view of your legal rights it is, of course, open to you to take such steps as you may deem advisable.
As regards the question of dredging, I am directed to inform you that His Excellency regrets that he cannot give the permission for which you ask as he is advised that the course you propose might endanger the safety of the present sea-wall and Praya roadway.
With respect to the difficulty you allege that you experience as regards cargo boats at low water, it was open to you to have retained so much of your pier or wharf as would suffice for their loading and unloading thereat.
In conclusion I have to refer you to the last paragraph of my letter of the 17th September, 1895.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
J. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Colonial Secretary.
HONGKONG, 27th September, 1895.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instant in reply to mine of the 18th, and regret that His Excellency the Governor declines to furnish me with copies of the Reports with regard to the silting up of the foreshore in front of Marine Lot No. 184.
I must therefore remain satisfied with the evidence of the photograph showing the silting as against the statement of the Government that there has been no silting.
2. Whatever our legal rights may be, there can be no doubt that the Chief Justice is of opinion that adequate compensation must be paid for injury inflicted; and, he does not stand alone in that opinion; for, in the case of the Attorney General of the Straits Settlements v. Wemyss, the Judge, before whom the case was tried, gave effect to that opinion, with which the Court of Appeal, and afterwards the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agreed.
3. To say that the present sea-wall, built only a few years ago by the Government, and supposed to have been solidly built, might be endangered by the removal of silt which has accreted since its construction, is a confession I did not expect.
4. You now tell me that it was open to me to have retained so much of the Pier as would suffice for loading and unloading boats thereat. I confess I did not see anything in the "Praya Wharves and Piers Ordinance" indicating that it was optional with the owners of piers to retain any portion of the pier; and certainly the letter of the Crown Solicitor of the 13th May, 1895, to Mr. M. J. D. Stephens gives no intimation of such option, but states that, upon removal of the Pier, the Government will be prepared to pay the amount in Column A of the Government notification of 28th October, 1893. And moreover, the money was not paid until the officer in charge of the Reclamation had ascertained, by dragging a wire rope over the bed of the sea, that the whole of the Pier, even to the stumps of the broken piles, had been removed.
5. With regard to the last paragraph of your letter having reference to dealing with the subject of compensation as a whole, I may suggest that the present time is not inopportune so to deal with it, as the property will realize more as a going concern than when part or the whole of the business is gone; and it is not improbable that some Firm or Syndicate having the control of cargo and steamers may buy it now.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
THOS. HOWARD.
The Honourable J. H. STEWART LOCKHART,
Colonial Secretary.
HONGKONG, 30th December, 1895.
On coming to our Godowns, situated on Marine Lot 184, this morning, I find that some stones which were in front thereof, used for the purpose of making fast the ropes of cargo boats, have been removed, and are now being placed on the Praya Wall in front of the adjoining Lot.
Now, inasmuch as these stones did no harm to any one, and have been of great service to us since the removal of our Pier, I have to ask if His Excellency the Governor will give instructions for them to be replaced, for without them and without Pier, we have now nothing to which we can make fast the ropes, and if we have to remain in this condition, our business will be ruined.
May I ask that the matter may be attended to as soon as possible in order to avoid unnecessary loss.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
T. HOWARD.
The Honourable J. H. STEWART LOCKHART,
Colonial Secretary.
No. 40.
SIR,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 9th January, 1896.
In reply to your letter of the 30th ultimo, I am directed to inform you that the stones referred to have been replaced.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
T. HOWARD, Esq.
Your most obedient Servant,
J. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Colonial Secretary.
SIR,
68
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 25th September, 1895.
I bave the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th Sept- ember, 1895, and in reply I am directed to inform you that His Excellency declines to furnish the copies you ask for.
As regards your view of your legal rights it is, of course, open to you to take such steps as you may deem advisable.
As regards the question of dredging, I am directed to inform you that His Excellency regrets that he cannot give the permission for which you ask as he is advised that the course you propose might endanger the safety of the present sea- wall and Praya roadway,
With respect to the difficulty you allege that you experience as regards cargo boats at low water, it was open to you to have retained so much of your pier or wharf as would suffice for their loading and unloading thereat.
In conclusion I have to refer you to the last paragraph of my letter of the 17th September, 1895.
THOMAS HOWArd, Esq,
SIR,
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
J. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Colonial Secretary.
HONGKONG, 27th September, 1895.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instaut in reply to mine of the 18th, and regret that His Excellency the Governor declines to furnish me with copies of the Reports with regard to the silting up of the fore- shore in front of Marine Lot No. 184.
I must therefore remain satisfied with the evidence of the photograph show- ing the silting as against the statement of the Government that there has been no silting.
2. Whatever our legal rights may be, there can be no doubt that the Chief Justice is of opinion that adequate compensation must be paid for injury inflicted; and, he does not stand alone in that opinion; for, in the case of the Attorney General of the Straits Settlements e. Wemyss, the Judge, before whom the case was tried, gave effect to that opinion, with which the Court of Appeal, and afterwards the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agreed.
3. To say that the present sea-wall, built only a few years ago by the Government, and supposed to have been solidly built, might be endangered by the removal of silt which has accreted since its construction, is a confession I did not expect.
4. You now tell me that it was open to me to have retained so much of the Pier as would suffice for loading and unloading boats thereat. I confess I did not see anything in the "Praya Wharves and Piers Ordinance" iudicating that it was optional with the owners of piers to retain any portion of the pier; and certainly the letter of the Crown Solicitor of the 13th May, 1895, to Mr. M. J. D. Stephens
69
652
gives no intimation of sitch option, but states that, upon removal of the Pier, the Government will be prepared to pay the amount in Column A of the Government notification of 28th October, 1893. And moreover, the money was not paid until the officer in charge of the Reclamation had ascertained, by dragging a wire rope over the bed of the sea, that the whole of the Pier, even to the stumps of the broken piles, had been removed.
5. With regard to the last paragraph of ̧ your letter having reference to dealing with the subject of compensation as a whole, I may suggest that the present time is not inopportune so to deal with it, as the property will realize more as a going concern than when part or the whole of the business is gone; and it is not improbable that some Firm or Syndicate having the control of cargo and steamers may buy it now.
I have the honour to be.
The Honourable J. STEWART LOCKHART,
Colonial Secretary.
St,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
THOS. HOWARD.
Hoxgkosa, 30th December, 1895.
Ou coming to our Godowns, situated on marine Lot 184, this morning, I find that some stones which were in front thereof, used for the purpose of making fast the ropes
of cargo boats, have been removed, and are now being placed on the Praya Wall in front of the adjoining Lot.
Now, inasmuch as these stones did no harm to any one, and have been of great service to us since the removal of our Pier, I have to ask if His Excellency the Governor will give instructions for them to be replaced, for without them and without Pier, we have now nothing to which we can make fast the ropes, and if we have to remain in this condition, our business will be ruined.
May I ask that the matter may be attended to as soon as possible in order to avoid unnecessary loss.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
T. HOWARD.
The Honourable J. 11. STEWART LOCKHART,
Colonial Secretary.
No. 40.
SIR,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Hosarosa, 9th January, 1896.
you
that
In reply to your letter of the 30th ultimo, I am directed to inform the stones referred to have been replaced.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
T. HOWARD, Esq.
Your most obedient Servant,
J. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Colonial Secretory,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.