Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 726

value.

648

As a matter of fact, the Government were practically asking a favour from the Godown Company. They were asking the Godown Company to alter their Lot for the purpose of a certain widening of the Praya Roadway, and the price, as a matter of fact, was an accommodation price; and there is another point to be considered in connection with this second theory, and that is, that all these Lots were nearer the centre of the Town than Marine Lot 184.

It will be remem- bered that all these five Lots were East of the Sailors' Home.

HIS EXCELLENCY : What is the exact nature of this arrangement between the Government and the Godown Company ?

Mr. POLLOCK-As I understand it, there was a widening of the Praya Road- way necessary, and the Godown Company were making a roadway in front of their land. The Government wanted the Godown Company to extend part of that Re- clamation. This is really the full explanation of the arrangement [reads paper handed in by Crown.] My contention is that that was a special arrangement made with the Godown Company, and it is not unreasonable that, as the Government were practically asking a favour, they should be prepared to pay a greater price than they would have done under ordinary circumstances. My point is that it was a matter of favour to the Government, an lit certainly was worth the Government's while to pay a good round sun for the privilege, it being necessary to round up the whole Reclamation and make it uniforin. Mr. Orange had not measured the Lots. It is simply a theory thrown out on the Reclamation Ordinance by the Claimants, and I would submit it is not for us to go into details with regard to this matter. It is really for the Claimants to prove their case.

Now, the third theory of Mr. Orange in justification of his basis of $5 before the Reclamation is that in 1881 the Lot sold for $80,000, ie., $2.53 per square foot, and Mr. Orange goes on to say:- I surmise that between 1881 and 1895 it must have doubled in value". It will have been noted that there was in 1884 the sale to Mr. Stephens for $65,000, that is to say, roughly, at $2 per foot.

The fourth basis which he puts forward to support his theory is very interes- ting. He goes on the erroneous basis of capitalising the Godown profits, and has, moreover, on his own admission, gone on the wrong basis of capitalising at 6° instead of 7%. Well then, Mr. Orange working on these false premises comes to certain figures, but not wauring to make a difference in his valuations, he surmises and brings them into line. Those are the four theories which Mr. Orange puts forward to support his valuation of $5, and I would submit that, when they are examined, it is not a satisfactory basis to go upon. His valuation, founded upon these erroneous premises, is bigher than Mr. Ram's or Mr. Turner's.

Well then, to return to Mr. Ram's valuation, I would submit that the Musso rate of $3.25 which he mentions, would not be an unfair rate to take. The Musso premises were fairly near to Howard and Stephens' Godowns, and they were valued absolutely independently and, without any reference at all to this case, at the rate of $3.25 per square foot. It is quite true that Mr. Ram in his Report tries to make out that, probably between 1897 and 1899 there would be an appreciation which he puts at 75 cents, and therefore brings the valuation up to $4. I think I am right, however, in saying that Mr. Ram admitted that he had practically nothing to go upon as regards the difference between the land in 1897 and 1899, that is, he had nothing to justify his reasons for going on that basis.

Now, we pass on to Mr. Turner. It will be remembered that Mr. Turner valued a Lot at $3 per square foot, and he said he thought something ought to be added on,

because that Lot was not quite completed. If we take a sort of average, we come to $3.25. Governor Black's Award was in 1898, that is to say, it was exact- ly a year after the Musso valuation. Now, if the Musso valuation be adopted, the sum will work out 32,481 square feet at $3.25 per square foot, I make it $105,563.25, or, to put it in round figures, say $105,600 for the land alone. Well, now, there is the question of buildings. We submit that $50,000 would be a fair sum to allow for the buildings. The valuations on the part of the Claimants' experts, as regards the buildings as well as in connection with the land, shew a good deal of discrepancy. Mr. Rum values at $60,000; Mr. Orange at $55,000, and Mr. Turner at $45,000. Well, I think it would not be an unfair rate to take the