the apportionment to be re-considered; and as I have said already I do not think that the position which he took up was unreasonable, though it may have been erroneous. He pointed out that his holding in Marine Lot 53A was far larger than Yiu Chow's. fis holding was composed of two parts: section A which was behind B and D, and had no frontage, and the narrow strip called the Remaining Portion, which bad. But the total of his holding of the whole lot was far in excess of Yiu Chow's; and he was the lessee of the Marine Lot.
If this question he had raised bad ever been discussed something might have turned on this; because Section A is treated throughout these proceedings as a back section; but Chu Chuen always based his claim on the fact that he was a frontager with a small frontage but with the larger part of the lot behind.
On 4th September, that is still within the 2 months provided by the Ordinance, he writes again, saying that he has had no answer to his previous letter: that he iefuses to assent to the scheme: claims an extension of time, and threatens to petition Her Majesty the Queen, with a view to drawing special attention to the inadequacy of the Ordinance in so far as it provides no adequate tribunal for investigating and disposing of such claim as bis. The Government action which followed is open to grave objection. The Government's duty was clear: to have given him some information within a reasonable time so as not to jeopardise his position by the running out of the 2 months. But it was not till 26th September, after this period had expired, that a letter is written to him asking him to discuss the question he had raised with the Surveyor General and another gentleman.
The letter of 30th September from the Colonial Secretary is astonishing he is directed by the Governor to inform Chu Chuen that his representations in respect of apparent errors in the Reclamat scheme had only been placed before H.E. that day, "presumably on the ground that some questions raised were not in a position to be dealt with until all objections had been received from neighbouring proprietors." The Government therefore begins by ignoring its own Ordinance. Its duty was manifest. On its own showing the time allowed was not sufficient for the purpose; an amending Ordinance ought to have been passed immediately, giving itself and the lessees further time to settle differences. I have been trained in the strictest school of constitutional law, more especially in its application to Crown Colonies; a Legislature has been provided, and the rights of that Legislature must be respected even in the smallest detail. Further, in this case the rights of individuals were being dealt with, and the greatest circumspection was necessary on the part of the Government and its officers that everything should he done regularly. 1 have 30 notion of a Government passing an Ordinance, and then acting autocratically, as if no Ordinance had been passed and doing what it thinks fit. But what is more extraordinary still, is the admission that there were questions, apparently ike the one raised by Chu Chuen, which required discussion. Nevertheless, this letter to Chu Chuen of 30th September concludes with a threat that if Chu Chuen will not discuss the question with the Surveyor General, he will be regarded as a dissentient and treated as such in the manner provided ly the Ordinance. Being already three weeks out of time the Government here again adopts its own rendering of the Ordinance, which is errone-
ous.
An extraordinary argument was advanced in the previous case on this point. It was not relied on before me but I refer to it in order to emphasise my view. It was contended p. 105 of the Record of the previous case) as regards the point of it being out of time, that the provisions in the Ordinance as to the two months and one month, were merely directory and not imperative This simply means that legislation in express terms is to be treated as if it were not in express terms; and is absurd. The case cited, Smith v. Jones (1 B & Ad. at p. 334) does not support it. And my learned predecessor in his judgment in the Full Court raid The Crown could, however, I presume, by its representative allow the agreement to be entered into after the three months under its general powers, if not under its statutory authority." With much respect such general powers, which involve passing by the provisions of an Ordinance, do not exist. For future guidance of the Executive 1 think it advisable to correct such a musleading impression which seems to have prevailed in the Colony. And what the Government thought they were achieving by dating the agreements and getting them sigued by the Land Officer within the 3 months, and not by the other parties, more especially when the other parties were not ready to sign them, I have not the remotest idea. Certainly not compliance with the Ordinance.
There is a further letter from Chu Chuen in which he puts forward arguments against the proposed subdivision of the reclamation Then follows a which, to say the least, are deserving of consideration. letter from the Colonial Secretary 6th December, exactly 3 months out of time, in which Chu Chuen is informed that the Governor is advised that he may be permitted to sign the agreement (ie. the agreement in the schedule of the Ordinance) in respect of the whole lot uron his guaranteeing either to assign an equitable proportion of the reclamation or to pay an equivalent in money both to the holder of section C, and to the holder of sections B and D. The suggestion is made because the Governor understands that Chu Chuen is willing to adopt the course
128
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.