CO129-542-3 Foreshore and Sea-bed Works Bill- correspondence 9-1-1933 - 16-8-1933 — Page 49

49

give the executive a general power to extinguish entirely

the rights of riparian owners. The enactment of such a

measure would not pass unnoticed in China; the Chinese

Government, it is feared, would be quick to seize upon such

an example so close to their own doors and would use it to

justify the assumption of similar powers in relation to

British riparian owners in China.

Possibly no harm would

result from this if there existed in Chinese law provisions

for fair compensation and machinery for giving effect to

them such as are contained in the draft Ordinance and the

Hong Kong Administration.

Unfortunately the Chinese

Government are only too prone to assume the status and the

powers of a well organised civilised state while yet

unready to discharge the corresponding duties and

obligations.

They would be very likely to select clauses

6 and 7 of the draft Ordinance for imitation while ignoring

or distorting those provisions which ensure fair treatment

for the dispossessed riparian owner.

6.

Sir John Simon does not propose to suggest specific

amendments to the draft Ordinance. He fears, however, that

if it is enacted in its present form the Foreign Office may

be deprived of a strong argument which has hitherto served

to protect British riparian owners in China. On the other

hand, if it were possible for the Colonial Administration to

achieve the end thay have in view by the method of passing

a special Ordinance for each public work that might be

contemplated the effect in China would be to strengthen

rather than weaken the hands of the Foreign Office.

7.

Sir John Simon does not wish specifically to

press