524
LORD KELVIN'S PROFESSORIAL
JUBILEE.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
The following telegrams have been exchanged between H.E. the Governor and Lord Kelvin:-
THE GOVERNOR TO LORD KELVIN.
Hearty congratulations Jubilee professorship notable achievements in canse of science especi- ally in regard to Submarine Telegraphy and Navigation.
ROBINSON.
LORD KELVIN TO THE GOVERNOR.
I thank you warmly for kind congratulations and reference to my efforts for Submarine Tele- graphy.
KELVIN.
Lord Kelvin was appointed Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Glas- gow in 1846 and has therefore completed his jubilee in that appointment.
CORR SND. NCE [We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our orrespondents.]
THE OLIVERS MINES.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS." SIR, We note in Messrs. Chater and Ver- non's share report published in your issue to- day the following paragraph appears respect- ing the offer made from London to buy the properties of the Olivers Mines, Limited :- "The arrangement with the Anglo and Aus- tralian Co. reported in our last has been finally settled." As General Managers of the above Company we wish to state that this is not cor- rect. The offer to buy was made subject to the favourable report of the Anglo and Australian Company's expert, which has not yet been made.
-Your obedient servants,
JOHN D. HUMPHREYS & SON, General Managers,
Olivers Freehold Mines, Limited. Hongkong, 18th June, 1896.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE
"DAILY PRESS.
"
Sir, In reference to Messrs. J. D. Hum. phreys and Son's letter in your issue of to-day, dealing with the statement made in our circular of the 17th inst. that the Olivers Freehold Co.'s property had been finally transferred to the Anglo and Australian Co., and stating that the same was incorrect, we would esteem it a favour if you would allow us space to give our authority for the statement. To commence with, qur remarks referred to the Olivers Freehold and the New Balmoral Co., but as the negotia- tions for the transfer of the properties are, we believe, being carried on jointly this need make no difference to the matter at issue.
Anglo and Australian Co., London, has been accepted. The offer is subject to the mines being favourably reported on by the expert of the Anglo and Australian Co." This paragraph was looked on b✦ us, and we venture to think by the public, as a tardy an- nouncement of part of the proceedings at the private meeting, and anyway had nothing definite or explicit about it in the way of a cor- rection of the telegram published on the 9th inst.
With apologies to you and your readers for. taking up so much of your valuable space on a more or less personal matter.-Yours faithfully,
CHATER & VERNON.
Hongkong, 19th June, 1896.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS" Sir, In reference to Messrs. Chater and Vernon's letter appearing in your issue of this morning and Mr. Eric Georg's Share Report published by his attorney Mr. Vernon in this evening's China Mail, we would point out that the telegram from the Anglo-Australian Co. was embodied in a private circular reporting the proceedings held at a private meeting of Balmoral shareholders, No permission, was given either by the General Managers of the Balmoral Co. or by us to make the telegram public and on the first occasion when it was made public we distinctly informed a member of Messrs. Chater and Vernon's firm that we did not read the telegram in the same way his firm had done. When on Friday last we found that Messrs. Chater and Vernon per- sisted in giving the same rendering. to the telegram we considered it necessary to make a public correction.We are, sir, your obedient servants,
JOHN D. HUMPHREYS & SON,
General Managers, Olivers Freehold Mines, Limited. Hongkong, 20th June, 1896.
[June 24, 1896.
perty holders in the colony and one which we have been trying to bring to a head for over four months.
The by-law in question refers to obstructions in back yards. Mr. V. H. Deacon appeared for the defendant and it was ruled that the by-law in question is not retrospective, or, in other words, does not apply to any-structure erected prior to the date of the passing of the by-law, which was the 23rd March, 1895.
Our object in writing this letter is to point out how the Board has been acting in connec- tion with this by-law.
So long ago as the 17th February last we wrote to the Board informing them, on behalf of a client, that we had been advised their action was illegal and that they had no right to issue the notices which they were doing, viz., a printed form calling upon the owner to remove all obstructions in his back yard with- in a certain number of days or a prosecution would be instituted. No reply was received to this letter and no prosecution commenced. On the 19th February we again wrote to the Board on behalf of another client, saying that their action was illegal. On the 2nd March another letter to the same effect. On the 11th March we wrote another letter in which we not only stated that we were advised that the action of the Board was illegal, but asked that ja prosecution might be instituted at an early date to settle the matter. Still no reply and no prosecution.
j
Since then we have written on behalf of ten more clients, informing the Board on each oc- casion that their action was illegal, and in no instance have we received any reply. It was not until the case on Saturday that the Board proceeded to prosecute any one of our clients who was prepared to defend, though during this time some of our clients who, Chinese like, were unwilling to oppose the powers that be were prosecuted and fined.
Now, we say that the Board ought at an early TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS.”
date to have satisfied itself as to the legality of DEAR SIR. We hoped not to have occasion its actions. In the face of the number of let- to again claim your indulgence and that of ters from us, and we believe from others, it is your readers, but the letter from Messrs. J. difficult to believe that a Department like D. Humphreys and Sou in your last issue the Sanitary Board did not consult the almost makes it incumbent upon us to again legal advisers of the Crown when they were their action was ask you to give us space for a rejoinder, repeatedly told that Messrs. J. D. Humphreys and Son lay illegal. Instead, however, of proceeding at stress on the private nature of the circular an early date with a test case they passed those
to issued the New Balmoral Co.'s share who were prepared to defeud and continued for holders on the 10th inst., but as the telegram over four months to issue these notices from contained therein, which is the bone of conten-house to house wherever they found the back A large number of house tion between us, appeared in the China Mail of yards obstructed. the 9th inst., or before the circular was in the owners, on receipt of a printed notice of this kind headed by the Royal Arms and threatening prosecution, considered that they had no option but to comply, and we can prove that numbers have been thus coerced into pull- ing down structurs which were perfectly legal. We venture to think that had there been an unofficial majority on the Board action of this kind would never have been sanctioned.-Yours truly
LEIGH and ORANGE,
Mem.Inst.C. E.
hands of the shareholders, we contend that it could not be looked upon as of a private nature. In regard to Messrs. J. D. Humphreys having told a member of our firm that they did not read the telegram in the same way as we had done and that the transfer had not been made, we freely admit that this was done, and whilst admitting that they did so inform a member of our firm and regretting that the writer of the circular was not told of the fact submit before publishing the circular. we. (1st) that there were no possible two ways of reading the telegram as published by the mana- gers and that the statement in our circular was in strict accordance with it. (2nd) That this or similar intimations were very insufficient for such an important matter and that if the management had discovered the telegram was open to another construction it should have been either definitely stated in the public press or privately circulated amongst shareholders. We must again apologise for troubling you in this matter and trust you will favour us by publishing this our last letter on the subject. Yours faithfully, should not
· CHATER & VERNON. Hongkong, 22nd Junė, 1896.
On the 10th or 11th inst. a report of the proceedings at the private meeting of the Balmoral Co.'s shareholders was circulated. at the foot of which the following was published as a P.S.-"The following telegram from Mr. Ackroyd was received on the 9th inst. 'Have made arrangements to take all the commissions in shares, Anglo will pay expenses from date, the mines have been favourably re- ported on, flotation with the utmost despatch.' This telegram was also published by the China Mail of the 9th inst. as referring to the pro- perties of the two Companies and it was on the authority of the telegram and the circulation of it by the Managers that we stated the transfer had been finally settled. We now learn that the above telegram was mistranslated, mis. pointed, or mispunctuated by some one; that the comma after the word “ date
have been there, and that the message in the opinion of the managers should have read— "Have made arrangements to take all commis- sions in shares Anglo will pay expenses from date the mines have been favourably. reported upon," &c. As far as we know no attempt
to contradict or was made
correct the first version of the telegram other than the publication of the following paragraph, which appeared in the local papers of the 15th inst.: We learn from the General Managers of the Olivers Freehold Co. and the New Balmoral Gold Mining Co. that an offer to purchase the properties of the two Companies by the
THE SANITARY BOARD-ILLEGAL
PROCEEDINGS,
Hongkong, 21st June, 1896.
SOUTH FORMOSA,
[FROM A CORRESPONDENT.]
ANPING, 13th June. Little or no opium is now cleared from the Customs godown at Anping, local requirements being drawn from supplies brought in by junks. There is little doubt that smuggling is winked at by the Customs authorities. The junk trade is, naturally, flourishing under such favourable conditions.
The export duty on sugar is to be returned, on production of a landing certificate signed by the Japanese Consul at port of destination. This applies only to sugar upon which the tax has been paid, proof of which must be given to the Customs at time of shipment. Sugars to Japan are already exempt from duty, so that the revenue from this source will now prac- SIR-The action tried before Commander tically be nil. Why the tax was ever intro- Hastings at the Magistracy on Saturday last,duced to the detriment of the Customs revenue being the Sanitary Board against Mr. Choy Chan, the owner of 26 and 28, Gage Street, for a breach of by-law No. 5 of Ordinance 15 of 1894, and in which judgment was given against the Board, is of considerable interest to all pro-
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY.PRESS.
is a point which might well occupy the atten- tion of the genius at Taipeh who we believe, in responsible for the hopeless confusion into which the Customs and lekin offices are now thrown. The chief occupation of the Customs