CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9] — Page 661

81

-

658

80

I should be glad if you would consider this matter afresh from the point of view which I have indicated and let me know your further ideas upon the subject.

T. HOWARD, Esq.

I am, dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

HENRY E. POLLOCK.

buying up your godown business (which basis they have hitherto declined to ac- cept), to allow you to capitalize the value of that business at any figure like 168 years purchase.

Unless you are prepared to very materially modify your viewe upon the above point and unless you notify me to that effect within the next few days, I shall have no option but to return all the papers to His Excellency for him to award such a sum of money or such a Crown Lease of new land as he may in his abso- lute discretion think sufficient.

1

am,

dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

DEAR SIR,

HONGKONG, 25th October, 1898.

Marine Lot No. 184.

I have been to Macao and did not receive your letter of the 22nd instant un- til yesterday.

I have considered the matter of compensation from the point of view indicat- ed in your letter and will give you my further ideas on the subject, as requested.

In the Colonial Secretary's letter to Mr. Chater under dite 23rd June, 1888, it is stated that the obligation of the Crown is to compensate the frontage owner for the difference between the value of his Marine Lot and the value of the saine land converted into an Inland Lot by the Reclamation in front of it.

Our claim is under the Reclamation Ordinance, and this Or.linonce was pissed in 18×9 when the right of the Government to convert took inception, at which time the value as a Marine Lot would have been determined had there bean a pro- per compensation clause in the Ordinance, and therefore, the cost of the land in 1884 and the buillings thereon cannot be looked upon as a proper basis for com- pensation in 1889, the net rentals of the latter year being $14,025, from which the value can be deduced.

The value of the property at the present time can be best ascertained by a sale at public auction, and the difference between the proceeds thereof and the capitalised valne of the net rentals in 1×89 would come as near to the compensa- tion contemplated in the Colonial Secretary's letter before referred to as anything I can think of.

The only point in your letter remaining to be noticed is the rate for capital- isation.

Now, considering that I am not asking for the whole of the profits from our godown business to be capitalise 1, but merely the net rentals; and considering too that London valuers generally give 20 years' purchase, or more, as well as 10% for disturbance of business, I cannot think that any valuator here would consider 16 years purchase to be unreasonable.

H. E. POLLOCK, Esq.

DEAR SIR,

I am, dear Sir,

Yours truly,

THOS. HOWARD.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS,

HONGKONG, 3rd November, 1898.

I regret that, owing to pressure of business, your letter of the 25th ultimo should have remained unanswered.

I am sorry to say that it is entirely out of the question that I should advise the Government, even if they were willing to compensate you upon the basis of

T. HOWARD, Esq.

DEAR SIR,

HENRY E. POLLOCK,

HONGKONG, 7th November, 1898,

Marine Lot No. 184.

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, in which you inform me that it is entirely out of the question that you should advise the Government to allow me to capitalise the value of my Godown business at any figure like 163 years, purchase, and that unless I very materially modify my views you will return the papers to His Excellency for him to award such a sum of money or such a Crown lease of new land as he may in bis absolute discretion think sufficient.

2. Either I have not made my claim to compensation sufficiently clear, or I do not understand your letter.

3. You are aware that on account of my health. I offered to sacrifice a large sum in order to obtain a speedy settlement of the matter after nine years' suspense and uncertainty as to what the Governor, representing the Marine Lot holders, would do about compensation ; and, as I have already informed you, I am willing

to accept a sum, lower than the very lowest sum at which the value of Marine Lot No. 184 could ever fairly be assessed, namely, $200,000 as an even sum, as the value of the Marine Lot.

4. My Godown business, which consisted chiefly in storing goods and lending money on the goods stored in our own Godowns, I could have removed to other Godowns if there had been any others which I could have acquired for the purpose, but my loss and consequent claim to compensation for Marine Lot No. 184 would have remained identically the same, as I did not include any loss of business in my original claim, and therefore there is no claim for such loss included in modified and reduced claim of $200,000.

5. I have never askel the Government to buy up my Godown business, nor have I asked to be allowed to capitalise that business at 16 years' purchase as yon seem to imply, but merely the net rentals.

6. My claim is for the destruction of our Marine Lot, which, by the Reclama- tion works in front, is now no longer a Marine Lot, nor could it be sold as such after the passing of the Reclamation Ordinance in 1889. The whole value of a Marine Lot, depends upon its having direct access to the water of the Harbour. That access being utterly put an end to so far as the use of my buildings, specially built as Godowns, is concerned, the Marine Lot No. 184, so far as I am concerned as owner, is also utterly put an end to.

7. The question then is, what is the condition of the Lot now that it is no