Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 705

627

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL-What about this question of compulsory sale, referred to in Messrs. Leigh & Orange's Report?

Mr. CALTHROP :-The Claimants do not intend to put forth any claim for compulsion. We were not obliged to sell at the time.

The next report is by Mr. Leigh with regard to the silting up.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-I would draw Your Excellency's attention to the fact that in the Claimants' Statement of Claim filed herein, they make no mention whatever of silting, and, if they persist in going on with such claim, then it will be necessary for me to ask for an adjournment. We have some very voluminous. material on this matter. In this connection I would like to draw your attention. to the Praya Reclamation Ordinance [reads from Praya Reclamation Ordinance.]

up.

Mr. CALTHROP-I want to put in Mr. Leigh's evidence.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :-You made no claim for dainages before 1896.

•

Mr. CALTHROP-I also want to put in the papers wherein we claim for silting- The interference to which we refer between the years 1895 and 1899 was the silting-up. With regard to Mr. Leigh's evidence, this is a report made; Mr. Leigh is not here now. It is referred to on page 70 of the Petition.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :-This matter I say is irrelevant. The Ordinance starts with a preamble that the whole Foreshore was silting up [reads from Ordin- ance.] Whatever the Claimants may have thought, I contend that they could have no possible claim for silting up.

HIS EXCELLENCY:-Why is the particular time of the silting up different to any other time ?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :-There was no right after 1889. absolutely extinguished in 1889.

The right was

HIS EXCELLENCY:-I am sitting here to inquire whether the Claimants did incur loss apart from their legal rights to compensation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-They could not lose. In 1889 an Ordinance is pass- ed which absolutely extinguishes their rights. Section 7 lays down-[rends from Ordinance.] Let us assume that Mr. Stephens had a right to land cargo on the wharf; at the expiration of the time mentioned, be had no right, but the Govern- ment permitted him to continue doing so as an act of grace, to which he had absolutely no right, either equitable or legal. And now he wants you to compensate him in 1896 for what was done in 1889.

Mr. CALTHROP-During the whole of that time we are supposed to have no right at all, we were paying Crown Rent on a Marine Lot. The Attorney General and Sir William Goodman must have taken a different view; if there was no legal, then there was certainly a moral right. In connection with this Report by Mr. Leigh, we cannot compel the attendance of a witness. This document has been in the possession of the Government since 1896. The Crown have got Mr. Danby who can criticise it as much as he likes.

Mr. CALTHROP:-We were going to put in Mr. Leigh's evidence, and then the next thing we have here is a Survey Report by Palmer & Turner, and one by Mr. Denision, dated 24th September, 1896.

[The Attorney General, for the Crown, objects to the admission of evidence relating to silting up.]

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-The Petitioners propose to give evidence in respect of loss caused them by certain silting up. This, I submit, arises out of a miscon- ception on their part of the rights of the Crown Lessee as against the Crown. The whole rights of the Petitioner depend upon the construction put upon the Crown Lease of Lot No. 184; you will find the counterpart of that Lease, on page 50 of the Privy Council Proceedings, Column A. Well, the first misconception is given expression to by the Petitioner in the Petition to the King at paragraph 4; the

Page 705Page 706