51
the Praya Reclamation and the probability of a Reclamation in front of Praya East. The question of outfalls is fully discussed in Mr. Chadwick's reports of 1890 refer- red to below. In these reports the outfalls for the Central and Western parts of the City are mentioned, and it is stated that in the Eastern District "it is proposed to discharge the sewage by means of numerous outfalls into the harbour in front of the district" pending future developments as to reclamation or otherwise.
Mr. Chadwick concluded these reports with the statement that "the most essential difference between the project now submitted and that prepared by Mr. Cooper is in the number and position of the outfalls but at the time of the prepa- ration of Mr. Cooper's report the Praya Reclamation was not projected.”
It is worth noting that Mr. R. K. Leigh, one of the signatories of the Petition, in a criticism he wrote on Mr. Cooper's proposed scheme of drainage actually condemned the proposed intercepting main drain and pumping stations, but now in common with the other Petitioners he for some inexplicable reason complains that they have not been constructed.
The enclosures B. and C. also show that the statement made in paragraph 19 that among other works no Depôts for Cattle have been provided; that nothing has been done since 1898 to limit the height of buildings (paragraph 22); that Ordinance 34 of 1899 was enacted "in an emasculated form, the more drastic re- medies recommended by the Sanitary Board with a view to the betterment of the Sanitary condition of the Colony having been deleted therefrom" (paragraph 23); and that nothing has been done since 1894 to improve the Sanitary condition of the Colony (paragraph 25), are without exception contrary to fact.
As regards Ordinance 34 of 1899 the only important modifications of the recommendations of the Sanitary Board were in respect of the open spaces required in rear of existing buildings and of the restriction of the height of buildings.
The Board's original recommendations on the first point went far beyond what Mr. Cooper and Dr. Clark himself had suggested to the Commissioners.
Dr. Clark, whose remarks are quoted and who has a seat on the Sanitary Board, agreed to the alterations, by which the requirement for spaces in rear of existing buildings were modified and the restriction as to height of buildings made to apply only to houses erected on land sold after the passing of the Ordi-
nance.
It should be remembered that the difficulty which confronted the Government in these particular matters was the structural difficulty in providing large spaces. except on re-construction of the houses and the question of compensation to owners of property if the law relating to the height of buildings were made retrospective.
5. Having briefly dealt with the facts which the statements B. and C. serve to elucidate, we now propose to examine shortly those points in the Petition which we have not yet touched upon.
In paragraph 7 the Petitioners complain by implication of the want of public baths.
In
We would point out that in comparatively few cities are public baths provided. many, as in Shanghai for example, they are provided by private enterprise. It is true that Public Bath Houses have not been built here till the current year when they were undertaken on the Governor's own initiative.
It is not a matter of great surprise that among the larger and more pressing works carried out in the Colony this item did not find a place earlier.
6. The statement quoted in paragraph 9 that Mr. Chadwick had recommended that the ground surfaces of all dwellings should be concreted and that such con-
Page 555Page 556