1
June 10, 1896.]
CHNIA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Company's office. The scheme entertained at that time foll through, an arrangement being come to between the promoters and the proprietor of the "Star" launches. A more frequent and regular service resulted from that arrangement, but with the rapid develop- ment of Kowloon and the great increase in the traffic a larger and improved class of boat is called for. If the requirements in this direction were met residence at Kow- loon would become still more popular with European residents and the pressure upon the house accommodation on this side The would be proportionately relieved. Government could hardly undertake the running of the ferry itself, but it might reasonably insist upon the boats complying with a certain fixed standard, introducing a Bill in the Legislative Council with that object if the existing powers are in- sufficient. The suggestion that the Gov- ernment should reserve wharves specially or this traffic which the ferry boats should be allowed the free use of under suitable conditions as to the regularity of service and the class of boat employed seems worthy of consideration, both ing an improved ferry service and better regulation of the traffic at the wharves. The police have lately succeeded in preserving much better order at New Pedder's Wharf than formerly prevailed, but the state of affairs even as it cxists now leaves much to be desired and is no credit to the colony.
want. It is true that private monopolies are usually more burdensome than Govern- ment monopolies, but in the present case no question of monopoly arises, and the require- ments of the shipping are more likely to be satisfactorily met under the influence of competition than if the Government took into its own hands the administration of all the wharves and established Government wharfage dues. If any scheme of that kind were adopted it would be absolutely necessary to establish a representative Harbour Board for the control and administration of the wharves, but even then the system, we are inclined to think, would not work so satis- factorily as the present one, The West Point Wharf and the Kowloon Wharves, now amalgamated, were constructed under special Ordinances, known respectively as Johnson's Wharves Ordinance and Chater's Wharves Ordinance. In these Ordinances we fail to find any trace of the illiberality alleged against the Government, and no doubt any marine lot holder who wished, either by himself or in conjunction with others as a public company, to engage in the wharfage business, could by legislation obtain similar powers and rights to those conferred by the Ordinances named. Per mission may also be obtained for the con- struction of private piers, and it is desirable that such permission should be granted on the most liberal terms possible consistently with the preservation of the rights of the public; but the question of what are liberal or illiberal terms may afford room for dif ference of opinion and it is not much use entering on its discussion until the terms to which objection is taken are stated. If it be granted that it is desirable that the colony should depend on individual effort for its requirements in the matter of wharf age accommodation for sea-going vessels, then the questions of whether the wharves are to be at right angles to the Praya or parallel to it and whether they are to be of wood or iron may well be left for decision in each individual case as it arises. In some positions a wharf at right angles might be the better, and in others a parallel wharf; no hard and fast rule could be laid down. The question of wood or iron seems to coucern principally the proprietors of the wharves and must depend on many conditions that can only be determined at the time of con- struction, such, for instance, as the relative prices of the two materials and the discovery of new or improved methods of protect ing them from to damage by water and marine insects. All things considered, we do not think any legitimate public grievance exists in respect of the policy, or absence of policy, of the Government in the matter of wharfage accommodation for sea-going vessels.
|
With reference to the alleged inade quate provision for steam-launch and boat traffic pending the completion of the new Praya, we are inclined to think the fault lies not so much in the want of adequate provision as in the absence of adequate regulation. Within a few yards of New Pedder's Wharf there is another landing stage, which is very seldom used, though there is no reason why it should not be, except that people object to walk the extra distance and instead overcrowd Pedder's Wharf. What is very much wanted is a wharf reserved exclusively for the Kowloon ferry traffic, and as a cognate subject may be mentioned the desirability of an improvement in the character of the boats by which the ferry is conducted. Designs for new ferry boats suitable for the service were got out some years ago and we believe are still to be found in the Dock
as secur-
COCKLOFT AND CUBICLES.—Â
MISTAKE IN THE LAW.
a
**
Af
"
a roon
479
or
no
"make further and better provision for the "health of the colony," and which was of a very drastic nature in some of its provi- sions. In relation to cocklofts, however, instead of "making further and better pro- "vision }}
it seems by a side wind to have exempted a large proportion of cocklofts from regulation of any kind. The old law (Ordinance 15 of 1889, section 24) provided that “A mezzanine floor “
storey shall have in every room a clear space both above and below it of nine "vertical feet, where such floor or storey "extends over more than two-thirds, and of "six vertical feet where it extends over "two-thirds or less than two-thirds of the 'greater dimension of such room." This is repealed by Ordinance 15 of 1894 and the following is substituted:-"It shall not "be lawful to construct, put up, continue, or maintain in any room of any domestic building now or hereafter erected or in course of erection any mezzanine floor, 'storey, or cock loft where such room is partitioned or divided off into separate compartments without the permission in writing of the Sanitary Board." Where is not divided into cubicles, therefore, it appears that there are regulations in force with reference, to cocklofts, which may be erected by the owner or tenant, as the case may be, entirely according to his own ideas. That is in effect the answer of the Sanitary Board to Mr. DANBY; it says the rooms he refers to were not divided off, therefore the re- gulations do not apply. If the Sanitary Board is correct in this contention, and it appears to be so, a grave
error has In reference to the correspondence between been made in the law. It is provided Mr. DANBY and the Sanitary Board the that in new buildings no mezzanine floots' Director of Public Works expresses the hope whatever shall be allowed except on a that "a full and complete enquiry will be made ground floor used as a shop or workshop "into Mr. DANDY's allegations against the and then only with the permission of the "Board and its officers by apparently the Sanitary Board. While making such "only means now available, namely, astringent regulations with reference to
Royal Commission.” That would be the most satisfactory course to adopt, except that a locally appointed Commission would be sufficient for the purpose, which is hardly of such national importance as to call for a. Royal Commission, a term which Mr. COOPER has probably used only by inad- vertence. It will be remembered that Mr. DANDY in his first communication, addressed to the Press, suggested that there was corruption in the administration of the sanitary regulations, and in support of his It is to be regretted on all accounts that suggestion he mentioned that certain cocklofts so many doubtful rumours bearing on in- which were legal had been torn down while ternational relations should find their way illegal cock lofts had been allowed to remain, into some of our Shanghai contemporaries. and that of two sunshades he indicated, It is more scrious, however, when unfounded which should have been treated alike, one reports are given special publicity in the had been removed and the other not. As great London dailies. The Times has just to the sunshades the Sanitary Board makes been made the medium for the propagation practically no defence; but it is very of a statement that was promptly telegraphed possible that a mistake might be made in out by Reuter and has, almost as promptly, such a matter as the removal of a sunshade been contradicted by that Agency. It was without any suspicion of corruption arising. stated that Herr VON BRANDT, formerly Ger- man Minister to China, had been appointed The question is whether there have been many such instances, either in relation to adviser for Foreign Affairs to the Tsung-li sunshades or other matters. According to Yamen with the rauk of Minister. Mr. DANBY there have been many cases similar statement, in the shape of a rumour, of unequal administration of the law if we remember rightly, obtained currency in relation to cocklofts, and if that in a northern contemporary, but no one took accusation could be sustained the suspicion the trouble to deny it then, though it was When the statement is of corruption would be confirmed. The not credited. Sanitary Board, however, says that the par-made in The Times, however, it becomes a ticular cocklofts Mr. DANBY characterised different matter, and it was very soon re- as legal are illegal and that those he cha- pudiated. The contradiction will, of course, racterised as illegal are legal. The question gain equal circulation with the announce- therefore resolves itself into a point of law, ment, aud probably no actual harm will be and on referring to the Ordinances to obtain done in this case, beyond possible annoy- light upon the point we have made what. ance to Herr VON BRANDT, and his strikes us as a strange discovery. Iu De-friends. But it might have proved other- ember, 1894, an Ordinance was passed to wise. It is quite within the bounds of pro-
с
new buildings the legislature could never have intended to remove the already existing regulations with reference to mezzanine floors in old buildings. The point does not appear to have been mentioned at all in the debates in Council or in the Sanitary Board nor to have had attention drawn to it in any way whatsoever.
SHANGHAI BUNDERS.
;
A