743
fixed at $2 per annum positive hardship would be inflicted on A by putting him in as owner and therefore liable to Government for the Crown Rent. For A is unable under his perpetual contract to raise the rent on B, and therefore stands to lose $1 per annum on land which tilled by B, and out of which B draws all the profit. In this case, therefore, A is pecuniarily benefited by being ejected.
(c) There remains the case in which A obtained a rental of $2 per annum from B, the Crown Rent being $1 per annum, and where therefore A, as the value has not yet been recovered by him in instalments, would suffer pecuniary loss if ejected. In this case, I would suggest that B should be required to pay A the balance of the value of the land, as assessed by a Member of the Land Court, and thereby buy the land from A outright. The term for which the lease has already run and the increase in Crown Rent should be allowed for in assessing the purchase money. Thus, as B buys out his perpetual lessor, the latter is again eliminated.
(d) If B refuses, or is unable to buy out A at the price fixed by a Member of the Land Court, then I think the Government should buy out A and recover the amount by an increased tax on B until such time as the full amount plus interest is paid off. B should, of course, be permitted to pay the balance in a lump sum to the Government whenever he is in a position to do so. The Government will become B's taxlord. I doubt whether these cases will be numerous, especially if the proposal to double the land-tax is carried out: for in that case most of the taxlords would disappear automatically under (b) supra.
I do not think it necessary to deal with the further refinement in cases where C buys from A, the perpetual lessor, the right to draw rent from B, the perpetual lessee. In this case C never had any direct interest in the land, does not know where it is, and is merely speculating on a fraud upon the Chinese Government. All that I have said applies a fortiori to these cases and, moreover, I believe that every single such claim is out of date in point of time and therefore cannot be allowed as His Excellency has definitely
743
}
}
fixed at $2 per annum positive hardship would be inflicted on A by
outting him in as owner and therefore liable to Government for the
Crown Rent. For A is unable under his perpetual contract to raise
the rent on B, and therefore stands to lose $1 per annum on land
which tilled by B, and out of which B draws all the orofit. In this
case, therefore, A is oecuniarily benefited by being ejected.
(c) There remains the case in which A obtained a rental of
$2 oer annum from E, the Crown Rent being $1 per anoun, and where
therefore A, as the value has not yet been recovered by him in ir-
I stalments, would suffer pecuniary loss if ejected. In this case,
would suggest that B should be required to pay A the balance of the
value of the land, as assessed by a Member of the Land Court, and
thereby buy the land from A outright. The term for which the lease has already run and the increase in Crown Kent should be allowed for
in assessing the purchase money. Thus, as E boys out his oeroetual
lessor, the batter is again eliminated.
Е
(a) If a refuses, or is unable to buy out A at the orice
fixed by a Member of the Land Court, then I think the Government
should buy out A and recover the amount by an increased tax on B on-
til such time as the full amount plus interest is paid off. should, of course, be permitted to pay the balance in a lumo sum to
In this way the Government, whenever he is in a position to do so. Government will become E's taxlord. I doubt whether these cases will be numerous, especially if the oroposal to double the land-tax is carried out: for in that case most of the taxlords would dis-
appear automatically under (b) suore.
I do not think necessary to deal with the further refinement in cases where O buys from A, the perpetual lessor, the right to draw rent from E, the perpetual lesses. In this case C never had any direct interest in the land, does not know where it is, and is
All that merely soeculating on a fraud doon the Chinese Government.
moreover, I be-
I have said applies à fortiori to these cases and, lieve that every single such claim is out of date in point of time and therefore cannot be allowed as His Excellency has definitely
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.