Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 701

3

623

he summarises his reasons. Mr. Howard goes into the question and gives his reasons for not having joined in the Reclamation scheme. Had he joined, he would have been entitled to take up the land in front on certain terms. [Reads from letter in Petition.] In the last paragraph but one he says [reads from Petition again], and he contended that he was entitled at that time to come in under the Ordinance and ask His Excellency the Governor for compensation. In August, 1895, (I am still referring to the same book, page 60) complaints were made by Mr. Howard on account of the silting up, and he also enclosed a report on this silting up by Messrs. Palmer & Turner. In answer to that letter he was told that he had better wait until the Reclamation works were complete, and then send in his claim for compensation. In page 68--the Claim was sent in, in which he suggested at that time that the Government should take over the property, and he valued the land then at $282,459, and he puts the loss of rentals for 1896 and 1897 together at $10,944. On page 70-there is another letter from Mr. Howard--16th June 1898-addressed to the then Colonial Secretary, in which he complains again about silting, and in paragraph 4 he says [reads from letter in Petition.]

+

·

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:It may be well to mention that 6 years pre- viously the Praya Reclamation Ordinance had been passed, one section of which debars all Marine Lot Owners from all claim to compensation. Therefore, in 1889, the right of which he speaks of having was taken from him.

Mr. CALTHROP :-As I have stated before, we admit that we have no legal or equitable right whatsoever. That has already been shewn by the litigation which has taken place between my Clients and the Crown, but it was recognised by the Ordinance that there was a moral right, see Section 6, Sub-section 7 [reads from Ordinance.]

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :

— ་

-There are two distinct classes of compensation.

Mr. CALTHROP:-The question whether the then Acting Governor's award was sufficient is the question which the Colonial Secretary has asked you to decide, and that does not deal with the question of legal right at all. We come here asking for such a sum as you think we ought to receive for compensation for any injury, which the Petitioners may have sustained. It is perfectly true that, although there has been a suggestion by the Petitioners that they have not received the right amount, and, although this amount has been considered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, they think there is still something to be said. Still, if Your Excellency should think that nothing more should be given to us, then I submit there is nothing further we can do in connection with this matter. page 81-General Black made his award. He said that he thought the sum of $15,000 was all they were entitled to for the loss they had incurred by the change of their Marine Lot into an Inland Lot, and also it was to include any sum they might have lost by the works during the progress of the works. I will now cone to the Petition of Right. The Petition was presented in 1899—

On

HIS EXCELLENCY:-Remember please that what we are now trying to arrive at is your opinion as to the loss incurred by Messrs. Howard and Stephens, and the data on which your opinion is formed.

Mr. CALTHROP :-I was going on with the data on which we went in 1899, and that on which the Governor also went, In this Petition, in paragraph 8, the Claimants say [reads from Petition]—

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Your Excellency must administer justice on recognised principles, otherwise we shall not know how to address the Court. I take it you will be guided by the regular principies of law in fixing the compensa- tion. Assuming General Black to have proceeded on a right principle, he has awarded sufficient or insufficient, but it does not mean Your Excellency is to depart from recognised principles in awarding.

Mr. CALTHROP :-I consider, however, that he did arrive-

:—