YAUMATEI TYPHOON SHELTER, HONG KONG
37
time would have been a much better purchase than that which the Government had decided upon. Heated argument followed and the levels of asperity which they raised in Council proceedings was quite exceptional in terms of today's conventions.*
It is clear from the records of subsequent meetings of the Council that the unofficials had got the bit between their teeth. Work was shortly, they thought, to begin on the shelter which had been talked about for so long, money was to be spent upon it and when the question of money arose tempers were quick to boil. Various alternative proposals to that which had been agreed by the Government were demanded for further consideration, and the unofficials returned again to the attack which had previously been mounted upon the purchase of a dredger by the Government.
Matters stood thus when disaster struck again on the 17th July, 1908 when a further typhoon struck the Colony. Before opening business at the first Legislative Council meeting held after that date the Governor had yet again to comment on a further disaster, owning that he had been told that the force of the wind in the last typhoon was very much greater than that which had previously been known as the great typhoon of September, 1906. He went on, as had so many Governors before him, to acknowledge the acts of heroism which had been displayed by so many people during the
* The two dredgers in question were called the "St. Enoch" and "Canton River". In Council, the Honourable Mr. Slade (Marcus Warre Slade, Barrister-at-Law, b. 1865, practised in Hong Kong from 1897) said that he wished to ask for information on one particular point before the motion was put: that was with respect to the vote for $86,500 for the typhoon refuge for small craft, which he understood included the cost of the dredger "St. Enoch" at £15,000. He said that he was not at the last meeting and did not therefore hear the explanation given in the Finance Committee but since his return to the Colony, he had seen a statement in a prominent position in one of the morning papers in which it was stated that the purchase of the "St. Enoch" for £15,000 had cost the tax-payers $100,000 more than it might have done. He presumed that meant the Government might have bought the dredger "Canton River", at a cost of £5,000 which was the difference between the two amounts. He said that he could hardly see how that was possible because he happened to know himself about the cost of "Canton River" to the present owners, and could not conceive that they would be willing to part with the vessel at such a price. He said however, that the statement had been given a very prominent position and he thought that an explanation was therefore due to the Council before the report of the Finance Committee was adopted. There were other points he referred to which were raised in that particular article with reference to the comparison and capabilities of the two dredgers. He expressed himself as no expert and could not comment upon that, but presumed that the Government had thoroughly well satisfied themselves