June 29, 1907.}
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
hon, senior unofficial member-as far as I can control of the Sanitary D partment, but that, follow him that the landlord of the two after all, is another matter. With regard to surviving houses would not apparently incur a the fifth resolution, I think it is altogether very large expenditure. No doubt we will have premature to appoint a committee, whether as the advantage of his views on that point later on. originally proposed or with the allertion sug- But I cannot see from his remarks in submitting gested by the hon. and learned member. I bis resolutions to this hon, chamber that the thipk myself, as I have stated, that his re objection from the landlord's point of view marks go too much into small details. There to these alterations in the style of
is a wider aud deeper question to be considered. house has been removed. The hon. member If then, after full discussion, and when the report said there was no practical difficulty in of the Bailding Ordinance Commission and the reconstruction of these walls. I have memoranda of the whole question have been already dealt with that point. Now, Your throughly threshed out and carefully considered, Excellency, the fourth resolution deals with the and possibly when the assistance of certain ex question of just compensation. In your open-perts has been obtained, then, and not till then, ing remarks your Exce'lenoy referring to the when the new draft ordinance comes before the question made use of the word " honesty "and Council, the advisability of appointing a pointed out that the official community commities can be considered. I very much appeared to be exercised over the use of the regret to find that in this particular caso I am word "honesty" as baving been an attack upon in opposition to the senior unofficial member of themselves. That was not in my mind. There the Council, bat as matters now stand I find are two forms of honesty. There is the myself quite unable to vote og these resolutions, honesty of the individual, and any attack on and I sincerely trust the proposer and this honesty is very serious. There is the seconder will be satisfied with the discussion bonesty which I may call political, the honesty that has taken place The remarks made will no of governments. As we all know that is a
doubt be dealt with in your Excellency's reply, very loose term-perhaps not a very nice one and I trust, that being so, the hon, members to have to apply to a government you are criti- will be satisfied with the discnssion and not cising, but after all it is a very old question. The press for a division. term has been used in connection with the spoliation of the publican and the spoliation of the Irish Landlord which are or have been burning questions at home. As I pointed out at the last meeting the question of the spoliation of the landlord-I use the word not in its off- ensive sense--has been more honestly dealt with by the Home Government than by the Govern-member who moved the resolution would with ment of this Colony who made a mistake when this Ordinance was introduced.
His EXCELLENCY-That is not admitted. The Hon. Mr. HEWETT-I beg your pardon. His EXCELLENCY-That is not admitted. The Hon. Mr. HEWETT-No sir, I understood that from your remarks; but with all due deference to your Excellency I maintain that where the Home Government has provided for compensation I think I am perfectly justified in drawing a parallel between the Public Health Act of 1875 and section 175 of the existing Hongkong Ordinance of 1903,
His EXCELLENCY-I do not admit that that Act dealt more generously than our Act, but even if it did there are imperial Acts subsequent to that Act and other municipal Acts which have formed precedenis.
on the
The Hon. Mr. H&WETT That is so, your Excellency, but I believe the main principle laid down in that Act still obtains and that where a man is called upon by the law to effect certain alterations in his property be is fully compensat ed. Under section 175 dealing with these improvements forced upon the landlord by the Ordinance of 1903 no compensation is granted at all. I maintain that is wrong, It is spoliation of the individual part of the community as represented by the Government in the interests of the com- munity at large. With regard to the question of finance I am absolutely in sympathy with my hon. member on my right. I have always maintained that in a colony like Hongkong-speaking as do after a great number of years of personal experience the only way in which we can maintain our proper financial standing is, so far as possible by paying for all qur public works whether re- munerative or unremunerative out of current revenue, and on no consideration should our credit be touched unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. I maintain that no case has been made out to justify our tranching on our credit to the extent of eight millions. We all know that estimates are very unreliable and the proba- bility is that instead of the cost being eight millions the amount required would be far greater. I personally would be very strongly opposed to entering upon any such scheme, particularly one which to my mind has not been thoroughly discussed and which I am not con- vinced will give the result which is hoped for it when we rakhly embark on such a scheme and pledge our credit to the extent of one sud a half millions sterling or a little more. There is one point on which I am glad to find myself in agreement with the hon. member on my left. I hat ia, I do think to a co tain extent that some of the money required to improve the sanitary condition of the town might be obtained by more economical
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-I will not detain the Council long, as I just wish t make a statement of the Government's policy. The Government has no objection to the passing of resolutions 1 and 2. As regards 3 and 4, they are not prepared to accept them at present and as regards No. 5, if the hou.
draw it in favour of another one something in this form, which I shall bring up at the time the division is taken-" That a represen'a- tive committee be appointed to consiler and make suggestions for dealing with the cubicle problem generally." If that resolution is acceptable to him, the Government have no objection to it.1
Hon. Dr. Ho KAI-Sir, in reply to the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Osborne stating that cleanliness alone would be all that was necessary together with the extermination of rats, and that he does not believe light and fresh air to be necessary.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE No, Sir. Excuse me I didn't say that.
Hon. Dr. Ho KAI-I understood you advocated that cleanliness, and said the extermination of rats would rid the Colony of plagas without lateral windows or any other means of improvement?
Hon. Mr. USBORNE-Without windows, that's my point.
lateral
Hon. Dr. Ho KAI-That is to say you lat houses remaia constructed as they are now?
Hoo. Mr. OSBORNE-Yes.
|
431
orks,
deal
of the hon. Director of Public I think, he must have misunderstood me altogether. I never made the remark t at the new style of house would involve the loss of cubicles: rather I think it in- creases the accommodation, because, as anyone looking at this plan will see, the kitchen is placed in a space previously occupied by the third house, and cubicles can be built right along the side, therefore it can contain many more. What I meant was that te Government refused to give compensation, bususe they say compensation would be given to the landlords for the loss of cubicles. I say that is wrong. It is not given to the land ords for the loss of cubicles, but in return for the resumption of certain laod to convert into open spaces, thus giving facility for lateral windows. As regards the remarks of the hon. m mber to the effect that he would have preferred the whole question to have been raised rather than the question of cubicles alone, I regret I could not take up the wuole subject at the present time. Tae subject is a very big one and besides wo have several other important questions which call for consideration. It is quite premature in my opinion to force the Government. Besides when
you with this question satisfactorily it wil. go a long way to settle the whole sanil tary problem of the Coloy. Now the bon. member asked what advantages the landlords gain in order to overcome the objection to the large expenditure in the strengthening of walls. Well if the hon. member will only look at the plans before him he will find there the advan- tages which the landlords will derive by coming under the scheme. In the first place the landlords on either side will gain an increased accommodation of over fifty per cent. rental of the houses must depend of course upon the number of
houses per-ons the can accommodate. Now if you look at the plans of the three houses of the old type you will see that they could only accommod. ate 34 parsons in the three houses. On the other hand two houses with lateral windows will accommodate 42 prsous per floor. That is to say the old type of house under the existing law would only be equal to the accommodation of 34 persons, and the three houses altoget her could not eocommodate as many persons as the two. person would give a do lar for their lodging the three houses altogether would only realise $34 per floor whereas the two houses would realise $12. Besides they have latrine accom- modation occupying about one third of the resumed space. That represents a free gift of a third of the space to them. Therefore they should contribute towards the compensation given for these open spaces and also toward the cost of strengthening or rebuilding their walls. Supposing the reconstruction of a wall is neces- sary I sup pess it would cost about 2,3 10. The hou. Director of Public Works may perhaps be able to give us the figures. Say a wall 50 feet long, about 4 feet hig, what would be the probabie cost of reconstruction, something like $2,00 ?
The
Suppose each
The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS-Less than that. The cost of build ng an ordinary Chinese house is about $1,500,
The Hon. Dr. 110 KAI-A wall ought not to cost more than $1000 ?
The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS - About that.
The Hon. Dr. Ho KAI-Yes. I don't think there is anything more to answer.
Hon. Dr. Ho Ka1-Personally I can believe in them: I can have faith in them, but I am not the medical expert responsirle for the sanitation of the Colony, and if you C&D convince the scientific and medical men of that, I think we have gained everything. But I ai afraid that you require a good deal more-in fact, plague may be said to be a disease which arises not from uncleanliness, but from bad light and from the exclusion of sunlight and fresh air. Now as regards his remarks upon the Colony bearing the cost of this large sum of a few million dollars. The Colony is bearing a much greater loss from year to year owing to its insanitary condition. Shipping firms have lost a great deal of money on account of the quiran-
His EXCELLENCY-I am very glad that the tine laws and other things; tradespeople and
senior ufficial member bought forward manufacturers lose very large sums of money.
these resolutions although the Government is landlords and tenants also suffer, because putting not able to accept them in their present form. up cubicles and knocking them down again costs a The question involved is one which, in my lot of money; then also the Sanitary Commission opinion, transcens in importance all other found that a large amount of money is wasted sanitary questions at the present time. in carrying out certain suppos-d sanitary im
volves the housing of the Chinese population provements in houses which have to be renewed of this busy city and of the growing city ia again after a little time; by the payment of Kowloon. (Dr. Ho Kai-Lear, he r.) Now, large sums of money into the hands of sabor. gentlemen.
let me remind you that dina e officers as bribes; also in re-concreting | question of_restricting onbic-s emanated houses and so on. These represent a loss to
from the Insanitary Properties Commis- the Colony every year. Then the increasing sion to which I referred the other day. of the Sanitary Staff from year to year involves That led to certain legislation and afterwa:da a very large loss. But is it not wise to expend at the request of the evil commuʊi y sauitary a large sum of money at one time to get every experts visited this colony and again examined thing in order, and thereby to make a large its nitary ondition. Those experts advised saving annually? As regards the remarks' that in the future windowless cubicles should
•
It in-
the