242
effect that a Committee was now enquiring into the above question, and that so soon as their report has been published, the result shall be notified to the Chamber.
The Secretary was instructed to ascertain whether the Committee had drawn up it: re- port.
THE CHINESE TARIFF.
On the 13th August, a letter in acknowledge- ment of the receipt of the telegram from the British Minister at Peking on the 8th idem, stating that no change in the duty on opium was contemplated, was despatched to Peking, and a question as to certain other imports was asked.
Read reply to above from Sir Ernest Batow, to the effect that the only other exemptions to the 5 per cent. Tariff are rice and other cereals and flour of foreign origin, gold and silver coin, I and bullion. The Chamber was correct, it was added, in supposing that cotton yarn would be liable to the duty.
Read letter from Colonial Secretary, dated 14th September, transmitting copy of telegram received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies as follows :-
"Powers bave consented to Chinese Import duties being placed on treaty basis of effective 5 per cent. on maritime imports including articles hitherto free, with the exception of rice, cereals and flour of foreign origin. New Tariff will come into force two months after 7th Septem- ber and exception has been made only in case of merchandise en route for ten days at latext after 7th September. Duties will be levied ad valorem pending conversion specific duties."
In connection with above
The CHAIRMAN mentioned that the native Customs duties at all open ports would be collected by the Imperial Maritime Customs. and that all duties levied on imports ad valorem will be converted, as far as possible and as soon as may be, into specific duties. He thought that these were most important points, on which there was much cause for congratulation. The Committee cordially concurred in this opinion.
It was decided, when writing to the British Minister to thank him for information recently given, and to urge that there should be no delay in carrying out the letter and the spirit of the provision for the prompt conversion of the ad valorem into specific duties.
THE PACIFIC CABLE.
A reply, signed by the Chairman, was, on the 24th August, sent to the circular letter from the Ottawa Board of Trade, which has also been published by the local Press.
A copy of the Times of the 14th August containing a letter by Sir Edward Sassoon on the Pacific cable and report of a debate on the same subject in the House of Commans was laid on the table.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
SECOND ENQUIRY INTO THE COCHRANE STREET
COLLAPSE.
The re-opened enquiry into the Cochrane Street house collapse began before Mr. Haze land, Police Magistrate, on Thursday morning. Mr.F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, address ing bis Worship, said that on the 30th ult., an enquiry had been held into the causes of death of the persons killed by the collapse of houses in Cochrane Street. As he saw from the deposi. sions taken at the said enquiry, his Worship decided that the people killed came to their death by the injuries received in the collapse of the houses in question. It had been decided, however, to have further evidence taken. His Worship acted in the capacity of coroner and coroner's jury, and therefore possessed all the powers of a coroner and a coroner's jury; also all the duties of such pertained to him. It was not merely his duty to find out the immediate cause of the death of those forty-three people, but also what caused the collapse of the honses. Jervis on Coroners writes as follows: The coroner should therefore enquire as to the circumstances of the death; where and when the deceased died or was found dead; by whom he was last seen alive; who was present, or who first saw the body after death; whe ther any known illness existed; whether any negligence or blame is alleged against auy- one. The cause of death was clear, but now it remained to find out what caused the falling of those houses. The evidence already taken might stand. It was only wished to call additional evidence. To begin with, Mr. Bowley called the owner of the building.
Chan Chun Cheung, the owner of Nos. 32 and 34, Cochrane Street, being sworn, stated
as follows:
I am a manufacturer of, and dealer in, matches, I reside at Nos. 42 and 44, Stanley Street. I own the houses Nos. 32 and 34, Cochrane Street, I negotiated for the purchase of No. 32 on the 25th or 26th of October, 1900, and for the pur- chase of No. 34 about the 6th or 7th of Novem- ber. 1900. The sale of No. 32 was completed about the 22nd December in the same year. The houses at the time I purchased them only contained three stories. † paid 59,900 for No. 32 and 89,800 for No. 34. I looked at the houses and found that another story could be added to them, and then agreed to purchase them. I did not consult anyone about adding another story before buying hous No. 32. I have built twenty to thirty houses myself. I employed a contractor to build them. never build houses without employing a contractor. In October I spoke to Mr. Hazeland, architect, about house No. 32, two days after I had made
au agreement to buy it. I asked him if the walls were strong I went enough to stand an additional floor
He told me he to his office to ask him. would go and have a look at the honss and let me know if another story could be added. A short time after he told me it was all right; I could add another floor, and he would draw the plan for me and have it passed and get per- mission. The alterations I wanted made honses. The kitchen was behind the back yard. were in the back-yard, which ran across the There were bridges on the upper floors leading to the kitchen. There were two external cross walls, and I wanted them pulled down and one single cross wall put up instead, so as to have one side and the back yard ou the other. The new cross wall was not on the same lines as the old ones. It made the living It was decided to reply regretting the in- ability of the Chamber to lend assistance in the
room slightly deeper. Mr. Hazeland drew the matter, and as it seemed obvious the Warans with the alterations and showed them to Department was being boycotted for some reason, to suggest application to the Registrar-
The CHAIRMAN remarked that they were much indebted to Sir Edward Sassoon for so per. severingly fighting their battle with the Tele. graph Campanies, and they would be` glad at any time to render him assistance in his crusade.
THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND
TRANSPORT COOLIES.
Read letter addressed to Colonel Collard, Deputy Assistant Adjutant General, complain ing of the difficulty experienced in securing tenders for the transport of guns, &c., not a single answer to the advertisements calling for tenders in the local papers having been received. and asking for the advice and assistance of the Chamber in the matter:
After some discussion,
General for assistance.
This was all the business of general interest.
The Bangkok Times hears that Mr. Jourdan, of Bangkok, has secured the contract to run the new Bangkok-Singapore line of French steamers. The concessionaire was M. Portal, civil engineer, and the subsidy is £12,000 a year ¦ for fifteen years. There are to be three steamers.' According to the terms of the concession they must be of not less than 400 tons net, and have an effective speed of 11 knots.
|
the kitchen on
me before sending them to the Director of
|
|
|
|
[September 23, 1901.
be the same as at No. 32. He prepared the plans, which witness saw. Witness signed a notice, dated 7th December, to the Pablio Works Depart- ment, concerning the alterations to No 34. *Mr. Hazeland afterwards showed him the permit from the P.W.D. Witness did not remember whether there was an enlarged verandah plan for No. 34, nor was he sure whether he received a copy of the verandab plan for No. 32. He thought he did, however. Mr. Hazeland, after he got the permits for witness, had nothing further to do with the matter. Witness paid him 840 for each house. The alterations were given to Poon Wo, and work on both houses was started at the same time. As to the tenants of the two houses, the first and ground floors of No. 32 wer let to the Tung Yik blacksmith shop, the proprietor of which occupied the premises before witness purchased the house. He paid $50 a month rent. The second floor was un- occupied when witness purchased the honse. To make the alterations, witness asked the people in the blacksmiths' shop to remove, but they refused, and carried on their work all the time the alterations were going on. The black- smith had a forge on the ground-floor, where he carried on bis trade as a blacksmith, making verandah irons and brackets like those shown on plan C. besides other work. When witness purchased No. 34, the tenant on the ground floor was a building contractor, whose rent was 834 a month. He still resided there at the time of the accident. There was a cockloft at No. 34 for storing beams and plant. Witness did not known whether any fokis slept at No. 34. The first floor was let as a family house, the rent for this being 824. These tenants were there, too, when the accident occurred. The second floor was used as a seamen's board- ing house, the proprietor of which moved away when the alterations were being made and returned when they were completed to occupy the third floor at a rent of 828. At the time of the accident the second floor was in use as a family house. The tenants of the ground and first floors remained during the alterations. At the time of the accident the family houses were divided into cubicles, the fol. lowing cubicles on each floor:-No. 32, second floor, four cubicles and one sitting room; third floor, the same. No. 4, first floor, five cubicles; second floor, four cubicles and one sitting room; third floor, uo onbicles. The tenants of the second floor, No. 32. at the time of the accident, were people who moved in a few days before; this was a family house and was rented at 822. The top floor was also used as a family house at a monthly rent of 826. The contractor who made the alterations had done work for witness before, but in the present instance there was no written contract. They simply agreed upon the price for which the work was to be done. 82,350, which included the whole of the altera-
tious to both houses. Before agreeing on this price he showed the contractor the plans, includ- ind a copy of that for the verandah. Witness superintended the work himself, and visited Cochrane Street sometimes once and twice a day and sometimes only once in reveral days. He gave orders to the contrastor as to how the work was to be done, and gave the plans to the contractor.
questions I should like to ask this witness, but Mr. Bowley-Your Worship, there are several should like him to be cautioned first.
I
The witness having been cantioned and told that he was not bound to answer unless he liked, Mr. Bowley asked if the work was carried out in accordance with the plans or not.
Witness-Yen.
Mr. Bowley-Did you follow the plans strictly in every detail ?
Witness-Yes,
In soswer to further questions, witness said
he understood the plans. Shown the plan of No. 34, he said he had put an arch on the ground floor instead of a wall, in order to admit the air.
Mr. Bowley-Did you afterwards put up a wooden partition to keep the air out ?
Witness-The tenant did.
Public Works. The plan of house No. 3: pro duced was the one sent to the P.W.D. The alterations were an additional floor and rerandalı. I have also seen the plan pro- daced of a detailed drawing of the verandah. It was drawn by Mr. Hazeland. The first and second floors already had verandahs. Some time after the plans were sent to the P.W.D., I received a permit. Mr. Hazeland gave it to me, and at the same time handed me back the plan of house No. 32. Before I received this Shown a section on the plan, witness said he permit I had purchased house No. 34.
saw four brick arebes dividing the kitchens Continting, witness declared that Mr. | from the yards. He did not put in those brick Haseland said the alterations at No. 34 were to 'arches, but did not obtain the approval of the
Mr. Bowley-Did you obtain the approval of Directer of Public Works to put in this arch in place of the wall.
Witness-No.
;