Page
260
should find pleasure in preserving and display" ing all that shows also what we were.
No monument can tell the story of Hong- kong's progress so well as the Clock Tower. Nothing else in the town explains so much; nothing in the Colony tells so briefly the broad facts. Other story-tellers remain, no doubt, each contributing their quota. Government House tells the story; Headquarter House tells it; East Point tells it by its old-fashioned gateway, its beautiful garden, its noble trees. These all speak historically, but they do not tell the story of the town's growth in particular. This the Clock Tower does, and for this reason it is earnestly to be desired by all who care for any of these things that the hand of the destroyer may be stayedand the venerable monument preserved as a sermon in stone," as a link with the past, as a relic of old Hongkong.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS,
+1
SIR-Referring to contributed articles in yes- terday's and to-day's issues of the Daily Press, I am glad to see there is someone taking up the cudgels in defence of this old timepiece. I have often wondered why it is desired that the structure should be moved, and can assign no adequate reason. It is really not only not an obstruction (as is averred), but on the contrary actually does the work of a policeman and divides the traffic; those who do not agree with this have but to stand for a few minutes during the busiest part of the day and observe for them selves. Now, as to its usefulness, this is surely undoubted as can be proved by asking all who land at, or depart from, Blake Pier; and from which point of vantage the structure algo ap- pears quite in keeping with its immediate sur- roundings and, at the same time, as your
4
contributor remarks, stands in prominent memory of the early days of the Colony.
Your contributor has written so fully on the subject that it is unnecessary for me to say more, further than to advise all who are toterested to read carefully the articles referred ni, if they have not already done so.
Thanking you for the insertion of this letter and enclosing my card.-I am, etc.
"ANTI-MOVER"
Hongkong, 10th October, 1905.
£1
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
[October 16, 1905.
UNREASONABLE
ALLEGED
RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 1
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS,' SIR,-I have read with much interest the articles on the subject of the Clock Tower in recent issues of your paper and, as an old China hand, I entirely agree with the views therein DODWELL & CO., LD. v. E. J. MOSS. expressed. I think that it would be a great pity to remove our old friend the Clock Tower from the position where it has stood for so long and where it does not, as far as my observation goes in any way impede the traffic.-- Yours, etc.
OLD CHINA HAND. Hongkong, 12th October, 1903.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS,
DEAR SIR,-As one who has always been opposed to the idea of removing an ancient landmark like " The Clock Tower" from its pre- sent site, I hailed with delight the two very able articles in your issues of the 9th and 10th inst, The only ground upon which its removal could possibly be defended is that it impedes traffic, and I submit that in this the "Vandalists" have entirely failed to prove their case.
I have occasion, like the writer of the articles in question, to pass the Clock Tower many times a day and ever since the controversy approaching the alleged block in traffic. arose have looked vain for anything
in
One can understand the owners and occupiers of adjoining property advocating its removal for very obvious reasons, which I trust will be estimated at their true value by "the powers that be," and I venture to think that & plebiscite would reveal that the general public is not incapable of seeing through them also.
Admitting that the Clock Tower possesses no great architectural beauty, it yet commemorates better than anything else amongst our public possessions history of which this Colony may well be proud.
this protest against its removal and thanking Trusting that you will find space to publish
you in anticipation. Your truly.
ANTI-VANDAL.
Hongkong, 12th October, 1905.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS,'
1E
SIR,-Why all this pother about the Clock Tower? The great majority of folk do not care two straws whether the Clock Tower remains where it is or is thrown into the $88. Personally, I have no use for it, and as a memorial of Old Hongkong I scarcely think it deserves all the fine sentiment your contributor has wasted upon it. I disagree with TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS."
the description applied to it by your correspon SIB,-In connection with the articles the dent" Anti-Morer," who pictures it as a police- have appeared in your paper anent the Clock
msn regulating the traffic. Certainly, it stands Tower, I fail to see what really sound object in the middle of the road, and there the resem your contributor had in writing at such length.blance ends, for it does not say to the wayward There is a very large quantity of sentimentalityricsba coolie, "Keep to the Right" or and very little else. Hongkong is a progressive colony and, as such, has no time for sentiment. It seems as if your contributor is content to remain in one particular groove all his life, and doesn't see why others are not.
What good purpose does the Clock Tower serve to us in its present position? As a substitute for a policeman to regulate the traffic, it is a failure, and to tell one the time it is also useless to a certain degree. By this I mean that there is practically only one place where an uninterrupted view of the tower is possible and that is at the junction of Des Voeux Road and Pedder Street.
Passing along Queen's Road it cannot be seen, and it is also out of sight at Blake Pier.
Personally I don't consider that Hongkong requires an independent clock tower at all. In my humble opinion the proper place for a city clock is on the top of the General Post Office, now in course of erection. From there it would be visible to the Harbour, Kowloon
and the Hill districts.
Apologising for thus trespassing on your valuable space. I am, etc.
ANTI-SENTIMENTAL,
[Our correspondent will observe in the report of yesterday's proceedings at the Legislative Council, that plans were submitted for a Clock Tower to be added to the new Post Office building-a suggestion made for the first time in the Daily Press a year or more ago by our contributor "Banyan.”—ED.
"Keep
to the Left" as the case may be, but allows ricshas and chairs to jostle their way past in utter disregard of the rules of the road," to the great discomfort of their "fares."
The Clock Tower is not a thing of beauty and I cannot conceive of it being a joy to any one. If the present and future generations are interested to know that when the Tower was erected in 1862 the water's edge was only a hundred and fifty yards beyond it, I do not see how that information is to be gleaned from a solid mass of masonry, unless it be your con- tributor's idea that the Government should place a tablet on the Tower mentioning the fact. kong which tell us where the water-front was in There are many historical records of Hong.
the Sixties. Looking up Mr. Denny's Treaty Ports," I notice that the Clock Tower was the subject of complaint from the time it was erected. It is placed, says the historian “in sɔ awkward a position that it is only conspicuous opposite to it." And so it remains! or even visible from a point of view just
have no idea what precisa object the com- munity had in view in erecting it, but presume it was a purely utilitarian object, and if that be so, I should think the Government would be acting conformably to the views of the old residents who subscribed to it if they removed it to a site on the water-front, and increased its height so that "the time o' day" might be seen from any ship in the harbour and by a far larger number of residents on shore than are able to see it now.-Yours faithfully.
OUTIS.
|
|
In the Supreme Court at Shanghai on the Co., Ld. versus E. J. Moss, was commenced be- 5th iast, the hearing of the case of Dodwell &
fore Mr. Justice de Sausmarez,
Mr. R. M. Macleod and Mr. H. E. Pollook, K.C., appeared for the plaintiff company and Mr. Francis Ellis and Mr. Duncan McNeill appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Macleod read the following amended petition of the plaintiff company.
AMENDED PETITION.
The amended petition of the plantiffs sheweth as follows :—
1.- Plaintiffs are general merchants and shipping and insurance and commission agents carrying on business at Foochow, in the Empira of China, Colombo and elsewhere.
2.-Defendant is a merchant carrying on business at Foochow aforesaid.
3.-By an agreement dated the 26th day of Nov., 1901, and mate between George Benjamin Dodwell and the defendant Ernest Joseph Moss who were carrying on business under the style of Dodwell, Carlill and Co., at Foochow and elsewhere, of the one part, and the plaintiff com- pany of the other part, it was agreed that thesaid George Benjamin Dodwell and the defendant E. J. Moss should as on the 1st day of January, 1902, assign to the plaintiffs the goodwill of the business of Dodwell, Carlill and Co.
3a. Plaintiffs have paid to the defendant the sum of £1,000 sterling as a consideration for such assignment and the agreements on the part of the defendant in the said agreement coutained.
the said G. B. Dodwell and the defendant E. J. 4-By clause 4 of the said agreement each of
Moss did thereby agree with the plaintiffs that they would not at any time thereafter while the plaintiff company should carry on business either solely or jointly with, or as manager or agent for, any other person or persons or com- pany other than the plaintiff company directly or indirectly carry on or be engaged or con- cerned or interested in any business of a similar character to any of the businesses carried on by the plaintiff company at (among other places) Foochow or Colombo, and that he would not permit or suffer his name to be used or employed in carrying on or in connection with any such business as aforesaid, save so far as he should as a member of the plaintiff company be interested or as officer or servant or agent of the plaintiff company be employed in the business of the plaintiff company.
5.-The said E. J. Moss was up to the 8th May, 1905, the manager of the plaintiff company at Fooohow but on that date ho tendered his resignation which was duly accepted by the plaintiff company and since that date he has been in no way connected with the plaintiff
company.
6-Defendant E. J. Moss has committed a breach of the said clause 4 of the said agres- ment dated the 29th November,1901.
7.-The following are the facts complained of:
The defendant has permitted his name to be used in the style of Moss & Co., Ld.. which company has advertised under date Fooohow, said 30th May, 1905, as general merchants, ship- May 30th, 1905, that it established itself on the ping, insurance and commission agents at Foouhow, Hankow, Shanghai and Colombo,
.
Your petitioners therefore pray:
1. That an injunction may issue to restrain the defendant so long as the plaintiffs carry on business there form carrying on at Foochow or Colombo either solely or jointly with or as manager or as agent for any other person or per- sons or company other than the plaintiff company directly or indirectly the business of life, marine or fire insurance or merchant, or shipping or commission agent, and from being engaged concerned or interested in any of such businesses at Foochow or Colombɔ,and from permitting or suffering his name to be used or employed in carrying on or in connection with any such businesses at Foochow or Colombo save so far as he shall as a member of the plaintiff company be interested or as an officer or servant or agent
+