May 29, 1909.]
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-Then I think we ought to be shown how much the Emigration Depot cost, how much Mr. Hallifax received-which I think was a very correct vote to make and how much the compensation to owners of houses damaged in the typhoon amounted to. $57,000 is a large sum of money.
The CHAIRMAN-The $11,791 was for com- pensation to owners for houses damaged by the typhoon.
The CAPTAIN SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE -The amount to Mr. Hallifax was about $3,00 1. The CHAIRMAN-Yes, and the depot as a matter of fact cost $3,000. The $3,000 for Mr. Halifax is in that $11,791.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE -With regard to sub- sidiary coins $164,000, actual expenditure, how much of that is redemption, and how much depreciation ?
The CHAIRMAN-$114,000 was the actual loss on the sale of the coin that was sold.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE--And $32,000 was spent on the redemption of coins?
The CHAIRMAN--There was an amount of 8535,000 collected and paid into the Treasury, and not re-issued.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE-So the Government's loss on small coin was about $32,000.
The CHAIRMAN-There was another item of $274,000 of new coin in the bank which had never been issued. That came to a total of over eight lakhs which we shipped home and sold.
Hon Mr. HEWETT-That was the 5,000,000 pieces shipped home.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE Does redemption meau the loss on small coin paid into the Government Departments?
The COLONIAL TREASURER-No, the loss on small coin sold as bullion, the amount written off on stock being distinct though included.
Hon Mr. OSBORNE Might I ask what is the object of buying up these coins?
The COLONIAL TREASURER--They are paid in and not re-issued.
Hon. Mr. ¡OSBORNE-Then $32,000 re- presents the total loss of the Government on coins paid in during the last year?
The COLONIL TREASURE -The $164.000 represents the total loss. A certain amount of that, something like $70,000, represents the amount which was written off for depreciation on remaining stock.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE The point that I want to make is that every business in this Colony is losing a large sum of money by having to receive these small coins, and in almost all public companies accounts you will see "loss ou subsidiary coins. What I want to get at is, how much the Government are losing on the subsidiary coins paid to them.
The COLONIAL TREASU ER-There is the actual figure, $164,674.72 last year.
The CHAIRMAN-And out of that, $114,000 represents the loss on coins shipped home and sold as bullion.
Hon. Mr. O8BORNE-Then are we to antici pate a loss of $164,000 every year roughly?
The COLONIAL TREASURER-The issue is limited. It might stop some day, but we don't know when.
The CHAIRMAN-It depends on the amount we receive and do not re-issue. We estimated for a loss of $36,000, but we had to exceed it considerably.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE So the ratepayers lost roughly $164,000 by having the place flooded with Chinese coin?
The CHAIRMAN-You are opening up the whole question now.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE-That is my reason for bringing it up. I want to bring it home to people what they are losing.
The CHAIRMAN-This Government over- issued subsidiary coin, and it has either got to go on re-issuing or take some action. The action it is taking is, not re-issuing up to a certain limit.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE-I don't want to enter on the old controversy, but I want to point out that the Colony is losing $164,000 annually by by this Chinese coin.
The CHAIRMAN-I don't think it is fair to say it is losing it annually. It lost it in the year 1968.
The COLONIAL TREASURER-My hon. friend on the right is taking a new attitude to the one he took two years ago. He was then temporising; now, he is very, very fixed in his
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
views. If he had been fixed at that time we might have done more good.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE-I am of the same attitude now as I was then.
The CHAIRMAN-I would point out that the loss this year will not be so large, as there will not be the item "unissued coin to sell," and it does not necessarily follow that if we have very large payments into the Treasury the whole of it will be redeemed.
The COLONIAL TREASURE-It must be. We have to write it off.
The CHAIRMAN-I am referring to actual redemption. There are two items, the actual loss on sale and the writing-off. We must write off the discount.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-We are losing about 14 per cent on subsidiary coins paid back into the Treasury. Is that so?
The CHAIRMAN-Yes.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-This lot is not necessa. rily because the Colony is flooded with Chinese coins, but because for a great number of years this Colony has issued more than it can absorb, and it is now coming back to the Colony.
The COLONIAL TREASURER-It is due to both reasons. We have over-issued, and at the same time the Chinese are flooding our Colony with foreign coin.
Hou. Mr. OSBORNE-A number of business men met together to discuss it, and came to different conclusions. But the point I want to make is that the Government are losing a considerable sum every year by this state of affairs, and it is to be hoped that they will take all the means they can to bring home to the Chinese Government what this unlimited over-issue means to this Colony.
The COLONIAL TREASURER-If you had only stuck to the majority report we would be in a different position now. We ought not to depend on the Chinese Government at all, but to take steps on our own account.
The CHAIRMAN-I can assure you that His Excellency has brought it to the notice of the Chinese Authorities, and tried to point out the error of their ways. The Chinese Government are very foolish in this matter.
Hon. Mr. GRESSON-On page 14 there is an item, $50,000 for floating fire engine. It says "not yet completed." How much has been spout on it?
The CHAIRMAN--There was a delay about the fire float. It was expected that it would be purchased in the year 1908.
Hon. Mr. GRESSON-It does not follow that the work has been stopped?
The CHAIRMAN-No, we are to get the float this year.
Hon. Mr. GRESSON-As to this military contri- bution on page 28, what is the explanation of that? The CHAIRMAN-There was an excess of $64,000. That was due to the Ordinary revenue of 1907 having exceeded the estimated revenue by about three lakhs.
he COLONIAL TREASURER-I would point out that the matter does not come under the bill under discussion.
The CHAIRMAN-We received more than we anticipated, and had to make good the percen. tage on the increase.
Hon. Mr. GRESSON-Does the item on page 33, the St. Enoch, come under this bill- $165,000 for the purchase of the St. Enoch.
The CHAIRMAN-Yes.
Hon. Mr. GRESSON-What is being done with the St. Enoch?
The CHAIRMAN-She is employed dredging out the trench for the breakwater.
Hon. Mr. GRESSON-She is actually at work? The CHAIRMAN-Yes. and has been for some months.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-On the same page there is an item for installation of electric fans at Government House, $4,000. I suppose that is in addition to the $5,000 or $6,00 for which a special vote was asked for certain work at Government House.
•
The CHAIRMAN-A vote was taken for this item. There were no fans at all in Government House.
The bill was then put to the vote, and passed.
Thirty cases of machinery, purchased from America, from the purpose of manufacturing bank-notes of the Ta Ching Government Bank, reached Peking recently. An expert American bank-note engraver is on the way out to China.
451
THE PEAK TRAMWAY BILL.
1
MINUTE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BOTANICAL AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENT.
The following minute was laid before the Legislative Council yesterday by command of His Excellency the Governor. Hon. Colonial Secretary,
In accordance with instructions I submit the following notes on the proposed new cable tramway to the Peak districts. It is now six years since the question of allowing a new cable tramway from the town to the Peak to be constructed partly through the Public Gardens began to be considered by the Govern- ment; during that time four distinct proposi- tions have been put forward in the endeavour to devise a compromise by which as little damage as possible should be done to the very beautiful surroundings of the Public Gardens and Glenealy Ravine, while on the other hand a convenient route might be provided for the construction of the line. The four alternative routes were (1) a tunnel under the* Gardens (2) a line on the surface of Glenealy Ravine (8) a line on high trestles in the Ravine (4) a wide cutting through the Public Gardens. The fourth, which was the first scheme proposed, is that now before you. It is the very worst of them all from the point of view of damage to the Gardens and in my capacity as Superintend- ent of the Botanical and Forestry Department I have felt it to be my imperative duty from the first to protest against it.
My position has throughout been supported by the conviction that the promoters, in their anxiety to secure the concession of a second route to the Peak have overlooked or at any rate not adequately considered the limited number of those whom the tramway is intended to benefit compared with immense mass of what may be called the intelligent middle classes of Chinese and Portuguese who would suffer in a special degree if the trum were run in this way through one of the most im- portant sections of the Public Gardens. In order to bring this aspect of the case more prominently before you I would ask you to remember in the first place that our city is, in tonsequence of the great demand on the limited amount of ground available for building purposes, unusually devoid of public open spaces or even of private gardens and that access to the open country on either side of Victoria cannot be gained except through suburbs densely crowded by the poorer classes of Chinese, so that the public Gardens, situated as they are in the centre of the residential dis- trict, form 8 priceless possession to the residents of the city of Victoria, by whom indeed they are more or less crowded all the year round. In addition to this the Gardens are very small, some thirteen acres only in all, and no further ground is available for extending them in any direction, nor is there any probability that there ever will be. It is doubtless in consequence of these con- siderations that Government after Government has resisted all temptations to part with any of this area for building purposes, for which its value must be very high. The city is yearly growing in size and importance, the Gardens are certainly more popular than they were five years ago and they may at any time again become the favourite resort of the English community also, as they used to be.
But apart from the general question of the encroachment by which some 50,000 square feet out of this small area will be made absolutely useless to the frequenters of the Gardens I would desire to emphasise the detriment which would be caused to the beauty and secln- sion of the Gardens by this particular kind of encroachment. The noise made by a cable tramway must be well known now to every resident, the rattling of the wheels over which the cables run can be heard far from the present line and it is through the part of the Gardens, most remote at present from noisy roads, that it is proposed to run these trams. It would moreover be difficult to imagine anything more detrimental to the beauty of the Gardens than a straight cutting 100 feet wide succeeded by a line of tresties carrying the
I