September 7, 1907.]
THE PROPOSED STANDING ORDNES.
The folowing reply was received from the Government relative to the proposed Standing Orders:
Colonial Secretary's Office.
August 23rd, 1907. Sir. Referring to your letter of the 8th instant re previous correspondence, I am directed to state that the Acting Attorney- General's advice was sought ou 12th July laat with regard to the proposed amendments of the Standing Orders of the Board.
2. Mr. Gompertz desired time to consider the point raised and in consequence the Ɑ}}- vernment was nuable to place his opinion
before the Board.
3. The matter has now been referred to Mr.
Rees Davies, the Attorney-General, whose opin
in is as follows:
4
"() The statutory power givan to the Sanitary Board limits its right to make standing orders for regulating the proordure of its meetings' and in my opinion standing orders which seek to place a prohibition as to right of voting woul not come within the purview of the section and are ultra vires (h) An amendment to the Public Health and
Buildings Orfiuane might be effected by inserting after section 13 a section prohibiting any member from voting on any question 'ia which he is beneficially interested.'
4. In view of this opinion this Government. withdraws the suggestion that the Board should make proposed amendments in their standing orders and will later consider (if it should seem to be necessary) the advisability of introducing a clause on the lines suggested in the conclud. ing paragraph of the Attorney-General's opinion into su Ordinance embodying the points in the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance 1903 which call for amendment.
5 I am to add that H F. the Governor is glad t› ‹bserve that te member of the Board whose remarks were the means of preventing the resolution being taken which would in the opinion of the Attorney-General hav· been ultra wires, endorses the principle to which it was suggested to give effect and declared himself in sympathy with it.
The VICE-PRESIDENT - P opose the letter lie on the table. I dont think it calls for comment.
Mr. HOOPER-I have a few remarks tɔ maks. I should have been willing to let the matter pass without comment considering that the legal adviser of the Crown has confirmed the opinion I expressed that the standing orders were ultra mires, but there
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
opened in ench case from the living room on the floor into the verandab.”
Mr. HOOPER minuted--As Masara J. D. Humphreys & Sn hold certificates, mention ed in section 2 of their letter of 11th December, they can claim exemption in accordance with section 268 of the Public Health and Baild- ings Ordinance, 1903.
|
is a personal allusion in the letter to myself. I am grati- fied that His Excellency is pleased with my attitude, but though I was responsible for the resolution not being pa-sed I adhere to the principle of the resolution. In order however, that there should be no misunderstand. ing in future. I would like to say that while I adhere to the principle I reserve to myself the right to criticise whatever application of that principle the Government may make in future, because I think we must all jealously guard the unofficial majority at this Board, With these remarks I am willing to let the matter take its course I may add that I think the Government on further considering the s bject will find there is no necessity for these standing orders because we are practically only an advisory board with regard to exemption, while we have no money to spend nor hare we power to enter into contracts. We can ouly advise the Government, if they look into the matter they will find there is no necessity for such a law.
·
Mr. HUMPHREYS-This may
be so, but Messrs J D. Humphreys and Son are not anxious to go to the expense of testing it in a court of law. The Board are not obliged to take action and I fail to see how they can very well do so, having recommended the property for exemption on three separate occasions.
Mr. LAU CHU-PAK-The enforcement of
1:45
* The
The VICE PRESIDENT (rending) Company upon this assurance erected 22 of these houses on the lot which were completed and passed by the Director of Public Works on August 12th, 1902, and by the Sanitary Board on August 14th, 1902,"
Mr. HooER--And I have seen those der- tificates.
The VICE-PRESIDENTI ́don't know that there is any use in ta cing a division. I think, perhaps, it would be better to refer the matter to the Crown Solicitor and ascertain how it stands.
Mr. HOOPER-I move that the opinion of the Attorney-General be taken.
The VICE-PRESIDENT-Yes, the Attorney.
section 175 is entirely left o the discretion of General. Do members agree?
the Board who should withdraw the notice.
The VICE-PRESIDENT-I think there is a
slight misu derstanding in the minds of mem- bers as to the power the Board possesses as to the modifiortion of the provisions of this section If the Board declines to exercise this power the enforce the provisions of the Ordinance, so that conrse will be for the Bailding Authority to I don't think the Baard in taking up this Dsition will be conferring any boon upon the owners of property.
Mr. HUMPHREYS-I would like to ask whether I am to cons der myself muzzled on this question.
The VICE-PRESIDENT -Oh no, you are at liberty to spɔak.
Mr. HUMPH EYS -I may tell you that although I am not in the Company myself, the firm in which I am a partner has shares. I_have more to do in managing the Company's affairs than anyone else, and will not vote on the question. At the same time, bef re tak- ing my a-at I should like to protest, very strongly against the way
the overnment. treats the Board in this matt r. This applica tion has been referred to the Government for
|
exemption four times alreads, and this is the fourth time it has come back. It seems to ma we are simply an advisory Board, and that all our powers are taken away from us, As long 24 we confine our attention to certain persons who have latrines and wa'er tanks in back yards our decision is final, but as soon as the Board attempts to consider anything of any importance it always comes back from the Government with the remark "the Governor- in-Council is not pleased to grant exemption." If the Government are going to continue to do this, it seems to me that the simplest ourse would be for the Governor-in-Couuoil to dissolve the Board altogether and settle everything itself out of hand. Why refer it to the Board at all? I don't know whether these con- stant pin pricks-I can call them nothing else are taken with a view to exeperate the nuofficial members of the Board and make them resign, but as ne of the ratepayers' rep asentatives i will resign when I feel inclined to de-n, or when the ratepayers take me off-not bafor, Mr. Hoope-Sir. With regard to your remark that if the Board refused to take action you, the Building -uthority, could, I ventur to say that that is a threat which I am sure would have no weight with any member of this Bard. But for your information I may tell you,
Bir that in my minnie I stated that certificates have been grauted by the Board and by the Building Authority nu ler Section 263 of the privions ordinauce
The owner of the property holds certificates under your hand, or nuder that of your delegate, stating that the houses were built accord ng to the Building Laws. The owa rof the property also bolds certificates from this Board stating The reply from the Government relative to that the houses were built in accordane, with the much-discussed question of exempting a the Public Health Laws, and in face of that certain blook of h uses in Mongkoktsui from
I think there is no course opan but for the section 175 was read as follows : -“Raferring to
Board to ta e no further setion in this your letter of the 3rd ult., I am directed to matter; and I may sy that I have been slate that H. E. the Governor-in-Council is un-legally advised that neither the Balding able to permit total exemption from the require- | Authorit, nor the Bart hav any right to ments of section 175 of the Public Health and Buildings Ordinancs, 1903, as amended by Ordinance No. 8 of 197, in the case of houses Nos. 191 to 231 Station Street North, Mon.. koktsui, The Governor-in-Council has, how- ever, granted exemption from the requirements of the section on condition that half the kitchen on the upper floors of sach house is convert- ed into a verandab, and that a window is
80
ANO HER COMPROMISE.
take any action, as it is covered by this sectio In these o roamstances would moe that no action whatever be taken on the notice.
Mr. LAU HU-PAK 8-conded.
Mr
Members signified their approval of this
course.
WATER TANKI
An application was received for permission to retain a water tank in the yard of 61, Third Street.
Mr. HOOPER minuted-I am not in favour of the abolition of tanks if they are kept clean. The inspectors might report periodioslly ou their condition.
The Hon. Mr. HEWETT-I consider the use of these tanks should be limited as much as possible. In most cases if the business of the workshop, restaurant, etc., is sufficient to justify a special water supply this can be arranged by the meter system. Not only does the existence of these tanks necessitate constant supervision on the part of the Sanitary Authorities, but they also
mean in most cases dirty water, being rendered the possible breading places of mosquitoes.
MORTALITY STATISTICS.
The death rate for the week ending August 10th was 24.8 in th› British sud foreign com. munity, as against 41,9 in the corresponding. week of last year and in the whole colony the responding week of last year. death rate was 20.5 as against 22.2 for the cɔr-
OOP# <-In order to make it quits clear, for your information, in a paragraph in John Humphreys' letcar you will find the date of your certificate. I would ask that it! be read.
•
The death rate in Macao for the week ending August 19th was 31.
per 1000.
SUPREME COURT.
Tuesday, 3rd September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.)
AN INTERPRETER'S CLAIM. Chang A Chong, a . agent, sued Lee Woon Nam for $300 salary for acting as clerk and interpreter to defendant in Manila Plaintiff land-d in Hongkong from Honolu'a fifteen years ago and spent a good deal of time in Hongkong, Canton and Manila. Fa ly this y-ar he was introduced to defendant in the Namhoi prison at Canton. Defendant was im- prisoned in connection with the liabilities of the Wai Wa bank, which he was man ging, and he sent for plaintiff in order to hear how a certain business was progrossing in Manila.
Defendant asked plaintiff could he go to Manlis for him, and after several meetings plaintiff agreed to accompany him to Manila. Thy remained in Manils for three months, but pl»int ff did not received any sal+ry for his services. The contract between the two was a verbal one; there was nothing in writi sự. Mr. Lang represented the plaintiff and Mr. Jackson represented the defendant.
Defendant's case was a danisi, and Mr. Jaok- son suggested that plaintiff had gɔns to Manila in connection with his goucy business.
After evidence, his Lordship gave judgment for defend nt with costs.
Thursday, 5th September.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE MR. A. G. Wish (Puisse Juden).
DI CHARGE BUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS. The application for the discharge of Ferdin- and Kiene, a former santionenr, wis submm'tted,
Hi Honour -Your report is filed, Mr. E ›mp ?* The Official Receiver-Y-a my Lord. Mr. Grist Your Lordship has read the report ?
h