That Your Memorialist, at the date of the Union of the Colonies,
was Assessor of Vancouver Island, having held that office since
January, 1863.
The Assessorship, under theprovisions provisions of the "Real Estate Tax
Amendment Act, 1862," of the Colony of Vancouver Island, was
declared
permanent; the Governor, for the time being, of the Colony, being
required to appoint a
"permanent Assessor."
The necessity for the office, (to which was attached a Salary of
£500 Sterling per annum,) having ceased, through the union of
British Columbia and Vancouver Island, the repeal of the Act
under which the Assessorship was created, took place.
Following such repeal by the "Real Estate Tax Repeal Ordinance,
1867" and on notification of the abolitionof of the office, Your
Memorialist preferred a claim for compensation.
This claim was objected to, on the ground that the appointment
was merely a local one, not of Crown creation, and "permanent"
only So long "as the local Act under which it was created, was
in existence."
In reply to this objection, and further in behalf of the claim,
as urged in the correspondence with the Government of British
Columbia, Your Memorialist would respectfully Submit That,
inasmuch as by the Vancouver Island Act of 1862, the office was
declared
permanent, So, the holder thereof, at once becameinvested invested with
certain rights, and So had a
permanent interest in the emoluments of the office, and that its
abolition, not brought about by any action of the Assessor, but
Simply by reason of the necessities of the State, could not
divest that officer of his interest therein; moreover, that
although the office might be abolished by the Legislature, yet,
that the emoluments attached thereto, and vested in the
Assessor, could not be confiscated, except by express terms, the
absence of which, in the Ordinance repealing the Act of 1862,
must, therefore, be held to be restrictive of the power
conferredby by that Ordinance.
This, indeed, is the more plain, when it is Seen, that the
Ordinance of 1867, while repealing the "Real Estate Tax
Amendment Act, 1862," actually, by its provisions, Saved
existing rights, So far as the Government had acquired a right
under that Act, and consequently, it must follow, that the
rights of the Assessor, as acquired under that Act, must, in
like manner, be considered, Saved.
Your Memorialist therefore prays that relief may be afforded
him, and that the justice of the claim, as advanced, may beadmitted
admitted; its merits, and its merits alone, constituting
its best title to consideration.
But Your Memorialist
as in duty bound, will ever pray &c
Sir F. Sandford Mr Wylly might well look to his appt as being permanent,
subject to its being abolished, which it was by the same power
that created it. He only held it from 1863 to 1867—his
compensation would only have been four months Salary (£500 a
year)—but you
will see from his letter of the 13 May to the Col. Secy that
he refused some employment which might debar him from any claim
to compensation.
The D. of Buckingham's despatch to which he refers is not a case
in point—that was a claim to compensation for losses
arising from moving from New Westminster to Victoria.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
A.N. Birch to Wylly, 1 May 1867, advising that the
position of assessor had been abolished.
Wylly to Colonial Secretary, 13 May 1867, submitting a claim for
compensation.
Birch to Wylly, 10 June 1867, advising his claim could not be
considered as the position of assessor was not a permanent one.
One months salary was offered as compensation for loss of office.
Wylly to Colonial Secretary, 20 June 1867, disputing the view
that his position was not permanent and requesting a further
review of his case.
Birch to Wylly, 4 July 1867, reporting that as his was not a
Crown appointment, it was permanent only "so long as the local
Act under which it was created was in existence."
Wylly to Colonial Secretary, 28 July 1867, further explanation
of why his claim should be allowed to stand (11 pages).
W.A.G. Young to Wylly, 25 November 1867, advising that after
further review, his claim for compensation was again disallowed.
Wylly to Colonial Secretary, 12 March 1869, asking for a
reconsideration of his case in light of a despatch from
Buckingham to Seymour, 24 October 1868, regarding compensation.
Young to Wylly, 24 March 1869, advising that the despatch in
question referred only to compensation for losses caused by
"the removal of the Seat of Government from New Westminster to
Victoria."
Other documents included in the file
Monsell to Wylly, 23 July 1869, advising that Granville
was "unable to interfere with the decision arrived at by the
Governor of B. Columbia."