3
intended that the frontagers on the Praya, whether of Marine Lots or sections, should alone participate in the advantages, and that they should each have the strip of the reclaimed land which lay in freut of the lots or sections.
This plan is referred to in s. 8 (1); it is to be published in the Gazette, and the simple meaning which is to be attributed to its incorporation by this means into the Ordinance is this:-The lessees who had already adbered to the scheme had been promised an equitable proportion of the reclaimed land, the plan would snow them what the Governor, by his advisers, considered an equitable proportion; and if that was acquiesced in, the plan was to be the basis of all future dis- cussion. With the promulgation of the plan and its final acceptance by the lessees who had originally adhered to the sebeme in its inchoate stage, the term "equitable proportion" had served its purpose and should thenceforward have disappeared. But for the minority of non-adherents the term had absolutely no meaning; they had not been promised au equitable proportion (except as it possibly might be miserred from she (original promise to the adherents). For them the Ordinance proposed forcible expropriation, on what the Government considered just terus, as such expropriation always should be. The fact that the just terms in their case were identical with the equitable proportions proposed for the original adherents has nothing to do with the matter; but in view of the subsequent use of the term, as if it had been an operative term of the Ordinance, it is essential that this should be borne in mind.
The scheme of expropriation being thus elaborated, on the basis of the plan, the conditious of acceptance were next provided for in 5. 8 (2). Those lessees who were desirous of entering into the final agreement were within 2 months from the date of the notice in the "Gazette" to "signify respectively in writing their acceptance of the pertions of the land assigned to them on the said plan and their intention to enter into an agreement." Then, the 3rd clause of s. 8 provides that within a further period of one month, the Governor was authorised, if he thought fit, to enter into the agreements with the lessees who lad accepted. The grant of a Crown lease was to close the business. Every- thing is cut and dried and no provision is made for delay.
On the con- trary, the 6th clause provides that "in case any lessee does not signify his acceptance in the manner and within the time provided" in the previous subsections, he is to have no claim to any compensation in respect of any depreciation of his lot by reason of the said work" but the Governor was allowed, if he thought fit, to award han such a sure of money, or a Crown lease of new land, by way of compensation for injury caused by the works. The meaning of this is clear. The lessees are told they may take it or leave it; but they must decide with a specified time. If they do not, the Governer has no power to grant them any indulgence or delay; and moreover, if they do not accept what is offered, they are not to have any claim for compensation for depreciation of their lots, by reason of loss of access to the foreshore, but the Governor may grant them compensation in one of two forms if he thinks fit.
No other subsections need detain us. But one point of procedure requires notice. After the agreements had been entered into, and towards the completion of the works, it was found advisable to create documents of preliminary title, calied possessory agreements, in order to allow the lessees to enter into possession of their portions of the roclaimed lands. I am not sure that any question turns on the legality of these agreements: they were an obvious necessity. But they tall within the scope of the general criticism I shall presently have to make; their issue should have been specially provided for by Ordinance. Works which interfere with individual rights in the public interest can only be undertaken by legislative authority; and every step should be specially authorised. Although, as I have said, I should be prepared to stretch a point in regard to these documents, I am bound to point out that the Executive has no right to embroider on to what the Legislature bas provided other documents of their own devising.
It is most material to appreciate accurately the position of affairs at the time the Ordinance was passed. It was said that the scheme of the Government with its attendant plan then and there received legisla- tive sanction, and that there was an end of the matter. To a certain extent this is true, but to a certain extent only. During the argument I suggested that the scheme was on its trial. I think this is the more accurate view, but it requires some explanation.
Suppose some of the original adherents had thought that the Government plan was open to objection: as, for example, that the amount devoted to public use for roads was too great, or that the lines were wrongly drawn or that the Crown rent was too high, or that the con- ditions as to the building of houses on the reclamation were too onerous: suppose in fact that some of many of these adherents had raised the question that the original compact on which the Ordinance was based, that the division was to proceed on the principle of equitable proportion, had not been complied with, can there be any doubt that they would have been entitled to be heard? Assuredly not. They could not have protested before the Ordinance was passed because the plan was not in existence. Having had much practical experience in such matters, I say unhesitatingly that a Government would be mad which insisted on pressing through a scheme such as this if it had been challenged as being a breach of their original undertaking by those with
288
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.