( 38 )
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-Notwithstanding the cubicles ?-The cubicles of course check the light, and one small window at the back of a house is not going to improve it one iota either from the point of ventilation or from the point of light. I can show you whole streets where the back windows have not been opened for 10 years and a window that is not opened cannot ventilate.
The CHAIRMAN-Docs it not give light ?—No, there is scarcely any light from these windows in backyards and you cannot make a man open this window nor stop him putting a curtain up against it.
Most of the windows are covered?—Yes; they are thick with dirt owing to misuse that they do not admit any light. Some of them have never been used since they were built. I say put in these back windows, because then the landlord has done all he can do, but it is the manners and customs of the Chinese that you want to alter more than the houses.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-Would it not be desirable to have a ventilator ?-- No, he would stop it up. Ventilation is draught; he does not like it, and you would have to stop up day and night to see that he did not do so. I hope you see my argu- inent about these houses. I limit a room lighted only on one side to 30 feet deep and in the case of rooms 30 to 40 feet deep there should be half the width as yard and in house over 40 feet deep there should be a 10-feet yard the whole width of the room. Even then I would limit it, because I know plenty of houses over 70 feet deep which are most insanitary. I know some houses which go right through from Winglok Street to Bonham Strand. There is a point I should like settled if there are to be any alterations in the sanitary bye-laws with reference to these backyards, and that is, it has been attempted (in at least one instance that has coine under my notice) to compel a man who is possessed of a backyard to provide the light for an adjoining owner.
I say that is unfair, and in connection with that, there is another. They both come under bye-laws 4 and 5 made under Ordinance 15 of 1894, which says that you shall not cover over any backyard or back lane in any shape or form. Now the Sanitary Board tried to rule that once a backyard always a backyard. I submitted plans where a small backyard was covered on one side and introduced a bigger one so as to improve the ventilation, but was refused because in doing so I had covered over an existing back- yard. Therefore it was tried to be held that once a backyard always a backyard. A man should be permitted to cover over any backyard if he provides a new one that was equally sanitary. It was also attempted to obtain one man's light for the backyard of another man, whereby he lost his privacy and in point of fact was providing light and air for the adjoining owner; such things as these ought to be carefully guarded against. Both these cases I have on record.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD- -That was permitted, you say?—I have letters from the Sanitary Board saying they would not permit it. In one instance I built the alteration about a year and a half ago and left them to take action, which they have not done. In the other case the point was arranged with the Crown Solicitor. That shows the tendency and from the landlords' point of view it ought to be carefully guarded against, because it is most unfair to inake one man provide light and air for another.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-The law as it stands at present can surely not compel a man to do that ?--Well, it was tried to be enforced but did not go before a Court.
Would you apply the rules respecting backyards to all houses old and new ?
No, I would make them apply to all old houses and to all houses to be built here- after, but I would exempt all the new houses that have been built under the present Health Ordinance and also all houses in course of construction, as I consider it would be unfair to make the owners of newly-built houses pull them down and alter them and also to introduce a law which would affect contracts in band.