442
MR. DANBY AND THE SANITARY BOARD.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
[May 27, 1896.
fall. Neither of those considerations comes within the domain of the Sanitary Board, which has to deal only with questions It would seem affecting public health. therefore that on this point Mr. DANBY'S case is completely established ON Board's own showing and that of two sun- shades which ought to have been treated one was removed! and the other allowed to. remain.
"should be made to induce persons to come "forward to give evidence." Mr. DANBY has come forward and has thereby rendered a public service, for which he deserves public thanks. In most cases of allegations of inisconduct there is more or less conflict of evidence, and in the present case it may be shown that Mr. DANBY's observation has on some points been defective, but the import-alike ant question is whether he is right in the substance of his complaints.
$1
(
The Sanitary Board, in passing a resolution asking to be furnished with the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown as to whe- ther any legal steps can be taken with a view to obtaining redress for the apparent misrepresentation made against the Board and its officers in Mr. DANBY's letter, has made itself supremely ridiculous, and it will no doubt be so advised by the Acting. Mr. MCCALLUM, the Sanitary Superin- Attorney-General. Mr. DANBY in his letter tendent, went with Mr. DANBY to look at addressed to the press indulged in some the premises in connection with which the general criticism of the manner in which question of cocklofts arises, and at first he the sanitary regulations are enforced, sug- appeared to be of opinion that Mr. DANBY gested that corruption is at work in the was correct in his allegations, but on his subordinate branches of the service, and return to his office he looked up the noti made definite charges against a particular |fications and subsequently sent a copy to officer that his duties were not carried out Mr. DANBY " underlining in red the part impartially. The officer referred to is on- which showed that the cocklofts which he titled to an opportunity of clearing himself, considered were illegal were perfectly and it may be considered an action at law legal and it would have been an illegal would afford him the means of doing so, act to have removed them." This was but that the Board should want to go to before Mr. DANBY published his letter, and law as a body is quite Gilbertian in its it must therefore be presumed that he was absurdity. Members of public Indies nast unconvinced by Mr. MCCALLUM's commu- not be too thin-skinned to stand publi|nication; otherwise he would have been criticism; and if the members of the Sani- guilty of misstatement when he published tary Board are so hypersensitive that they his letter. Possibly the question may re- want to raise a libel action on everything solve itself into one of strict measurement in that is said in their disfavour it would feet and inches of the height of the cock- better that they should resign. As to the lofts. In any case it is easy to understand officer against whom specific charges are that the Chinese who had their own cock lofts made, the fairest course to him would be in removed should draw unfavourable infer- adopt the sensible plan suggested by Mr.ences when they saw-other cocklofts allowed EDE, the only unofficial member of the Board, and hold a formal investigation by the Board; if the charges were not sustained the accused would be cleared of all im- putation on his character, or, on the other hand, if the finding should be against him the Board could then proceed to take such action as the circumstances might call for. It does not seem a case in which the au- thorities should instigate litigation on the part of the officer, as that would involve needless expense and lead to results that would in any case be less satis factory than those of a departmental in quiry. The Government could not provide the officer with the necessary funds for liti- gation, and to ask him to provide them him- self would be rather hard upon him when the question in dispute can he readily settled without any expense at all.
Leaving aside the case as affecting P.C. 103, which it would be improper to discuss while it is sub judice, it seems to us that on the general question the reply of the Sanitary Board to Mr. DANBY, is far from complete. Mr. DANBY, in support of his charge that sometimes partiality is shown, mentions the removal of cocklofts which he alleges were legal, while others which he alleges are illegal have been allowed to re- main: also the removal of a sunshade while another sunshade in the immediate neighbour- hood was undisturbed. It is not stated, nor remotely suggested, that the alleged par- tiality is shown with the knowledge or sanction of the Board or of its superior officers, but that it is shown by the sub- ordinate officers in actual charge of the operations. Now the subordinate officers are entitled to set as high a value on their characters as the superior officers set on theirs, and in weighing any charges brought against them the public generally we think will be inclined to accept the word of one European against that of a good many Chinamen. Nevertheless, there is an in- pression abroad that, as the Acting Captain Superintendent of Police says in his minute he fears, "there must be grounds for some of these complaints and an effort
"K
|
to remain which even the Sanitary Super intendent at first thought were illegal. Mr. MCCALLUM subsequently explained to these people the law on the subject and he says they seemed to clearly comprehend the position. That is satisfactory; but it was clearly a case in which explanation was called for. But in connection with Mr. MCCALLUM's statement in his minute that it would have been an illegal act to have removed the cocklofts that were allowed to remain must be read the admission made by the Sanitary Board in their letter to the Colonial Secretary that "whether the special provisions of the Ordinances re- garding certain structures are complied "with or not, if their removal is necessary for the thorough cleansing and disinfection of the premises they are removed." This leaves much to the discretion of those who have to carry out the cleansing operations and seems to leave an open door for squeezing if the officers are disposed to avail themselves of it.
f
C
C
We'come now to the question of sunshades. Mr. DANBY in his letter states that he saw
(
"
|
|
the
Another point urged by Mr. DANBY is that the occupants of houses are not allowed suf- ficient time to remove their goods when the houses are to be cleaned, and that goods are unnecessarily damaged for want of due care. It is impossible in carrying out compulsory cleansing operations to avoid altogether the infliction of hardship,and much depends upon the tact and discretion of the officers con- cerned. While quite willing to give the officers credit for a desire to inflict as little hardship as possible we are inclined to think that drawing public attention to the com- plaints of the Chinese as to the destruction of their merchandise and household goods is calculated to have a wholesome effect as tending to prevent the growth of any feeling of indifference on the part of the officers. to the interests of the people with whose houses they have to deal.
The Sanitary Board seeks to convict Mr. DANBY of an inconsistency because iu his letter to the press he says his reason for writing. "is that the regulations are not "carried out without fear or favour," while in a subsequent letter to the President .he states that his "main object was to suggest that the goods and merchandise of these Chinese merchants and shopkeepers "should be handled with a little more care "and also some reasonable time should be
"
"
(1
given to remove their own goods themselves "should they wish to do so." Whether the word "main" has been italicised by the Board or was underlined by Mr. DANBY himself we do not know, but taking The two phrases as they stand we fail to see any inconsistency between then. Mr. DANBY had apparently in view both the objects mentioned and, although precision of thought and language is desirable, it does not seem very singular that at one moment he may have thought the first of these objects the more important and at another moment the second. In the dis- cussion of an important public question quibbles raised on a point of that kind are to be deprecated.
THE PLAGUE AND THE HEALTH OF CANTON,
All fear of any extensive epidemic of a gang of coolies destroying a good sun-plague in the colony this year may now, we shade covered with zine and boards. think, be confidently dismissed, though "No one could say it was injurious to doubtless sporadic cases will continue to "health.
The sunshade at No. 55 occur for some time to come. It will be (next door but one) was intact and remembered that at this time in the year "not touched in any way." The explana 1894 the number of deaths from the disease tion given of this by the Sanitary Board in was increasing daily, whereas this year the the letter to the Colonial Secretary is that rate continues about stationary, and, more- "the former was in a very dirty and rotten over, the disease is reported to be abating "condition and was removed as a nuisance; considerably at Canton, which is the most "the latter is in fairly good condition and encouraging feature, for in this colony the "has been recently painted.' Here we disease seems to ebb and flow in sympathy have a direct conflict of evidence; a sun- with its prevalence in Canton. In the letter shade which Mr. DANBY describes as a good which the Sanitary Board at its meeting on one is described by the Sanitary Board as Thursday decided to address to the Colonial dirty and rotten. A sunshade necessarily Secretary with reference to the manner begins to wear a begrimed appearance very in which the sanitary regulations have been soon after painting, but even if in addition enforced, the Board, after remarking that to that it was beginning to show signs of the efforts of its officials during the last few age, we fail to see how it could constitute months, owing to the unfortunate reappear- a nuisance (assuming it did not constitute ance of the bubonic plague, have been mainly a nuisance when new) unless on account of directed against the state of filth that was its appearance or that it was dangerous to found to exist in many houses in the city. passers by in consequence of its liability to and the obstructions of windows and venti-
44