CO129-454 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1919 [4-6] — Page 56

they have had siyeam

notice gette

getre intentio Hort. & shd han meder a rosmothe hid Ithey wished to mantan the service.

I do not accept the doctrine y vista interests

on which bit Bushe's numute is trued. To do so would

mutitate against progress in a direction where fort-control is required & has

the part not her exercised in the

I advise that the

Mr. Eisle

request the refused.

In view of the difference of opinion

batween Mr. Bushe and Sir E. Stubbs on the

doctrine of vested interests, would you kindly

let us have: your obsons ?

kes thells fox (maen 5'

A.E.C.

25.6.

Mr.Collins,

Mr. Grindle.

This question of "vested interests* is

I think entirely one of public policy.

Persons who lawfully establish and

develop a certain undertaking in a Colony are en-

titled to the quiet enjoyment of their undertaking,

but noone will deny that it is competent and proper

for the local Government to procure legislation

controlling and regulating such an undertaking as a

ferry service in the general interest of the public.

The

53

The Ferries Ordinance, 1917, applies to all ferries in

Hong Kong except the service of the Star Ferry Company

and though it provides for regulations (inter alia) "for granting exclusive rights fer maintaining ferries"

it certainly contemplated the issue of more than one

licence under its provisions. In his report on the

Ordinance moreover the Attorney-General said that

section 3 would "enable the regulation of the various

ferries which require varying treatment to be taken up

piecemeal" and would "facilitate the separate handling

of ferries which call for distinct treatment".

He

also said that its main object was "not revenue but

the interests of the travelling public". On the face

of it the Ordinance was salutary and was sanctioned

without comment.

The Government have used the Ordinance to

put up a single exclusive ferry licence to auction

so as to create a monopoly and have sold that monopoly for a large sum (notwithstanding the Attorney-General's statement quoted above) to a Company other than the

petitioners. Their object has been to "break the

ring" and obtain money for wharves for the new service.

Quite recently a somewhat similar question

much

of policy arose in Nigeria where Sir F.Lugard proposed to use the local Piers Ordinance to the same purpose, 1.e. to give a practical monopoly, but in that case

not to one undertaker as against another, but to secure it for the big Government wharf scheme at Apapa

when completed.

He proposed to use the Ordinance so as to

give the London Kano Trading Company who had bought

the German firm of Gaiser's land a licence limited to

handling only their own goods and produce at their pier, notwithstanding that the river frontage and all

its incidental advantages had been much advertised

before