10. Sir Matthew disallows our claim of $25,142 for loss of rents before the Reclamation was brought actually in front of our Lot because no evidence was brought to show that there was any shoaling between the 1st January, 1896, and the 1st September, 1898. Evidence to show shoaling between those dates was not necessary because the shoaling which obstructed access to the sea-wall in front of our Lot had taken place before that time, and the Executive Engineer of the Reclamation stated that after March, 1896, the causes which had produced the shoaling ceased to operate. Sir Matthew Nathan admits that as a result of the construction of the right angle sea-wall in 1891 and 1892 there was an alteration of the sea bed, which may have been further affected by the demolition of our wharf, and the consequent dispersal of the stone filling under it. What necessity for stone filling under a wooden pier, or how the removal of wood piles should cause a rise in the sea-bed is not easy to understand, but when 27,000 tons of mud have to be displaced by depositing the pierre perdue a rise in the sea-bed must take place.
What is called the stone filling under the wharf were stones and earth carried from the demolition of part of the new rubble sea-wall and earth filling behind it on the adjoining Lot, and the sinking of five stone boats alongside our pier during a typhoon.
11. Before the Reclamation, sea-going steamers were brought alongside our pier, but after 1895, when the pier was taken away, cargo boats could not be brought to the seawall in front of our Lot at low tides, and when they were brought at high water and the tide receded, so many were damaged by grounding on the stones that owners refused to bring their boats, and coolie hire for carrying cargo a distance of 310 feet instead of 50 feet advanced to about three times the former rate, and many of our customers gave me notice that they would discontinue using our Godowns after 1895, and the number gradually decreased from more than 300 to about 30, and the net rents decreased from $15,406 in 1895 to $4,308 for 283 days in 1899 when the Godowns were sold, yet the Experts for the Crown said that the Reclamation had been a benefit to us.
12. The loss of rents, however, is not disputed, and had the Government settled our claim for depreciation when called upon to do so in 1896 there would not have been a claim for loss of rents. Thus the laches of the Government necessitated the claim and the Government is equally bound to pay the loss as it was to pay interest $17,294 for 6 years 334 days' delay in settling the depreciation.
13. As to having regard to all the circumstances of the case as proposed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton, Sir Matthew leaves out of consideration the fact that $148,500 have been paid into the Colonial Treasury, being proceeds of the sale of reclaimed land in front of our Lot, and the right to erect a pier in front thereof, and after deducting $32,897, the cost of reclaiming, there remains the sum of $115,603, out of which, $35,729 have been paid to us as compensation, leaving a profit of $79,874, which it is now sought to appropriate by an arbitrary act on the part of the Governor in repudiating the value of the land as given by his predecessor, Governor des Voeux, who passed the Reclamation Ordinance, and who may reasonably be expected to know the value of the land in question; and he disregards the circumstance of the new land being sold for $133,500 at which rate our old land would have a value of $285,277; and also the destruction of a profitable business of money lending on goods stored in our Godowns for which we have not claimed, ought to be regarded as one of the circumstances of the case.
14. My remarks upon the Award have been sent to my co-owner, Mr. Stephens, with the request that he would ask Sir Matthew Nathan to reconsider his decision in the light of the facts in evidence, but this he has refused to do.
15. I have therefore again to appeal to Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to exercise his prerogative and allow a Government Official experienced in matters of compensation and myself to meet to settle the principle upon which the amount of compensation shall be ascertained, and, if need arise, allow a disinterested Expert to act as umpire, and thus end a matter which ought to have been settled 16 years ago when the Reclamation Ordinance was passed, and remove the grievance we are entitled to feel because the justice in respect of private rights promised by Governor des Voeux has not been accorded to us.
Sir,
NOTE.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
THOMAS HOWARD,
In the course of the Enquiry it was stated by our Counsel that the Crown objected strongly to our bringing in Oral Evidence to prove an offer of $200,000 made to me for the property in 1888. On the 13th August, 1889 I had another offer $220,000, which I refused.-T.H.
Downing Street,
25th November, 1905.
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, with regard to the sum which has been awarded to you by the Government of Hongkong as compensation for injury to the former Marine Lot No. 184.
2. This matter has already received full consideration and you were informed in the last paragraph of the letter from this department of August 9th, 1904, that the Governor's decision must be taken as a final settlement, and that Mr. Lyttelton would be unable to entertain any proposals for a modification of it.
3. Mr. Lyttelton, therefore, regrets that he cannot continue the discussion of the case.
T. HOWARD, Esq.
I am,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
C. P. LUCAS.
691
:
i
10. Sir Matthew disallows our claim of $25,142 for loss of rents before the Reclamation was brought actually in front of our Lot because no evidence was brought to show that there was any shoaling between the 1st January, 1896, and the 1st September, 1898. Evidence to show shoaling between those dates was not necessary because the shoaling which obstructed access to the sea-wall in front of our Lot had taken place before that time, and the Executive Engin- cer of the Reclamation stated that after March, 1896, the causes which had produced the shoaling ceased to operate. Sir Matthew Nathan admits that as a result of the construction of the right angle sea-wall in 1891 and 1892 there was an alteration of the sea bed, which may have been further affected by the demolition of our wharf, and the consequent dispersal of the stone filling under it. What necessity for stone filling under a wooden pier, or how the re- moval of wood piles should cause a rise in the sea-bed is not easy to under- stand, but when 27,000 tons of mud have to be displaced by depositing the pierre perdue a rise in the sea-bed must take place.
What is called the stone filling under the wharf were stones and earth carried from the demolition of part of the new rubble sea-wall and earth filling behind it on the adjoining Lot, and the sinking of five stone boats alongside our pier during a typhoon.
I 1. Before the Reclamation, sea-going steamers were brought alongside our pier, but after 1895, when the pier was taken away, cargo boats could not be brought to the seawall in front of our Lot at low tides, and when they were brought at high water and the tide receded, so many were damaged by ground- ing on the stones that owners refused to bring their boats, and coolie hire for carrying cargo a distance of 310 feet instead of 50 feet advanced to about three times the former rate, and many of our customers gave me notice that they would discontinue using our Godowns after 1895, and the number gradually de- creased from more than 300 to about 30, and the net rents decreased from $15,406 in 1895 to $4.308 for 283 days in 1899 when the Godowns were sold, yet the Experts for the Crown said that the Reclamation had been a benefit
to us.
12.
The loss of rents, however, is not disputed, and had the Government settled our claim for depreciation when called upon to do so in 1896 there would not have been a claim for loss of rents.
Thus the laches of the Government necessitated the claim and the Govern- ment is equally bound to pay the loss as it was to pay interest $17,294 for 6 years 334 days' delay in settling the depreciation.
13. As to having regard to all the circumstances of the case as proposed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton, Sir Matthew leaves out of consideration the fact that $148,500 have been paid in to the Colonial Treasury, being proceeds of the sale of reclaimed land in front of our Lot, and the right to erect a pier in front thereof, and after deducting $32,897, the cost of reclaiming, there remains the sum of $115,603, out of which, $35,729 have been paid to us as compensation, leaving a profit of $79,874, which it is now sought to appropriate by an arbitrary act on the part of the Governor in repudiating the value of the land as given by his predecessor, Governor des Voeux, who passed the Reclamation Ordin- ance, and who may reasonably be expected to know the value of the land in question; and he disregards the circumstance of the new land being sold for $133.500 at which rate our old land would have a value of $285,277; and also the destruction of a profitable business of money lending on goods stored in our Godowns for which we have not claimed, ought to be regarded as one of the circumstances of the case.
14. My remarks upon the Award have been sent to my co-owner, Mr. Stephens, with the request that he would ask Sir Matthew Nathan to reconsider his decision in the light of the facts in evidence, but this he has refused to do.
15. I have therefore again to appeal to Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to exercise his prerogative and allow a Government Official experienced in matters of compensation and myself to meet to settle the principle upon which the amount of compensation shall be ascertained, and, if need arise, allow a disin- terested Expert to act as umpire, and thus end a matter which ought to have been settled 16 years ago when the Reclamation Ordinance was passed, and remove the grievance we are entitled to teel because the justice in respect of private rights promised by Governor des Voeux has not been accorded to us.
Sir,
NOTE.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
THOMAS HOWARD,
In the course of the Enquiry it was stated by our Counsel that the Crown objected strongly to our bringing in Oral Evidence to prove an offer of $200,000 made to me for the property in 1888. On the 13th August, 1889 I had another offer $220,000, which I refused.-T.H.
Downing Street,
25th November, 1905.
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, with regard to the sum which has been awarded to you by the Government of Hongkong as compensation for injury to the former Marine Lot No. 184.
2.
This matter has already received full consideration and you were in- formed in the last paragraph of the letter from this department of August 9th, 1904, that the Governor's decision must be taken as a final settlement, and that Mr. Lyttelton would be unable to entertain any proposals for a modification of
it.
3. Mr. Lyttelton, therefore, regrets that he cannot continue the dis- cussion of the case.
T. HOWARD, Esq.
I am,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
C. P. LUCAS.
691
i
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.