CO129-307 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [10-12] — Page 178

4. The most extensive reclamations hitherto carried out, as for instance the Praya Reclamation now nearing completion, have been undertaken under statutory authority.

In the vast majority of the cases in which such authority has not been obtained, the interference with rights has been so insignificant as to occasion little or no inconvenience and to call forth no complaint.

5. It is, however, desirable to obtain statutory validity for such past Crown leases as have, to any extent, interfered with public or private rights, and also to obtain statutory authority for the granting in the future of Crown leases of portions of the foreshore or bed of the sea in cases where the Governor in Council considers such leases expedient.

6. The proviso in section 2 is inserted to prevent any interference ex post facto with a judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Lantao Marine Lot No. 2, in which case the Court held that a Crown Lease could not operate so as to deprive certain fishermen of their prescriptive right to take coral and shells from the sea.

7. The further proviso in section 3 is to make it clear that it is not intended to interfere with the rights, or alleged rights, of holders of Lots, with regard to sea access in front of their respective lots.

8. When the agreement for granting a lease requires the laying out of certain sums in building, &c., within a certain time, the actual granting of the lease is usually held over till the conditions have been fulfilled. This is why it has been deemed necessary to insert the words "and all agreements for the grant of such leases." These also should be validated.

I beg leave to point out that the Ordinance as passed differs from the Bill dated 3rd November, 1900, which was enclosed in The Governor's Despatch No. 485 of the 8th November last to the Secretary of State, in the following respects, namely:-

1. The Preamble includes His Majesty as well as Her late Majesty Queen Victoria.

2. Lantao Marine Lot No. 1 has been omitted from section 2 as the parties never agreed that the case relating to Lantao Marine Lot No. 3 should be taken as a test case to decide the rights relating to Lantao Marine Lot No. 1, and the Secretary of State has given instructions that the validity of the grounds of the decision in Lantao Marine Lot No. 3 shall, in any future case, be carried up to the Highest Court of Appeal.

3. In paragraph 1 of section 3 the words, "seventy-five years or for such longer term as the Secretary of State may authorise", have been substituted for the word, "years", in accordance with the instructions contained in the Secretary of State's Despatch No. 105, dated 23rd March, 1901.

4. In paragraph 1 of section 3 the following additional amendments have been made, namely:-

(i) The words, "or building", have been inserted after "Harbour improvement".

(ii) The words, "for any other purpose whatsoever" have been substituted for the word "otherwise" in order to remove the possibility of any ejusdem generis argument being raised.

(iii) In paragraph 2 of section 3, the following words have been inserted after the words, "during a period of three months", namely, "and shall be published by proclamation in the Chinese language which proclamation shall be publicly posted in some suitable place near the site of the said property."

The reasons for this amendment, which was proposed by an Unofficial Member of Council and accepted by the Government, was to ensure that sufficient notice was given in their own language to Chinese fishermen whose rights might be affected.

(iv) In paragraph 3 of section 3 the words, "any holder of a Lot" have been substituted for the words "any marine lot holder".

The reason why the Government accepted this amendment, which was suggested by an Unofficial Member, was that there are certain Inland Lots in this Colony as well as Marine Lots which have access to the sea, and it has never been determined by our Courts what the rights of such Inland Lot holders are, and, therefore, I did not think it just to sweep away the rights (if any) of such Inland Lot holders by this Ordinance, especially as this question has recently become of some importance in connection with the proposed Praya East Reclamation, because certain Inland Lots face on the Praya East.

It is not improbable that, in connection with that Reclamation, a test case may be fought out for the purpose of determining the rights of Inland Lot Holders fronting on Praya East.

Under such circumstances it will readily be conceived that I did not think it right to decline to adopt the suggestion.