711
E
together every essential feature of these projects and are of one mind on every point of importance; so much so indeed that the documents submitted may be fairly looked upon as joint reports.
(Government Gazette of 1890 page 980.)
The projects were carried out under the direct supervision of Mr. Cooper and a reference to the plans of the sewerage of the City will show that there is no foundation for the widespread belief mentioned by the Chamber.
The statement contained in the same paragraph that the contents of the storm-water drains are nearly as foul as those of the sewers is true, and the only remedy appears to be a more efficient method of removal of night-soil and the more effective control of the hawking of vegetables, sugar-cane and fruit in the streets.
It is also true that the inlets to the storm-water drains in the streets are mostly untrapped, but it may be pointed out that Mr. Chadwick advocated ventilating orifices in the streets for the sewers, and that the escape of gas in the streets is comparatively harmless owing to excessive diffusion.
The Petitioners take exception in the same paragraph to the practice of passing chains through sewers, and draw the deduction that the sewers must have insufficient fall or be inadequately flushed.
The practice is merely a precautionary measure adopted in most well-ordered cities to ensure that no stoppage takes place without being detected and remedied at once.
10. In paragraph 20 the Petitioners make certain allegations regarding delay in providing latrines.
Regarding the latrine at Shektongtsui it was not an entirely new latrine (as might be inferred from the Petitioners' remarks) that was recommended in the end of 1896, but an enlargement of the already existing latrine at that spot.
At the time the recommendation was made an Ordinance was being prepared to protect Public Latrines.
The question of making the addition to the latrine was postponed till the passing of the Ordinance, which became law in June, 1897.
After the Ordinance had been passed it appears that by an oversight the Board failed to comply with the formalities required by the Ordinance before a latrine can be built on a particular site.
When the Board finally made the necessary formal application in 1898 funds were not available for this particular work, which was accordingly postponed.
The necessity for a latrine at Kowloon Point was largely due to the fact that insufficient conveniences were provided by the Wharf and Godown Company for the large number of coolies employed by them in this locality.
The Sanitary Board asked the Government in December, 1896, to put up a latrine at this spot and in January, 1897, addressed the Wharf and Godown Company on the subject of providing increased latrine accommodation for their employees. That Company made the increase required by the Board.
The question of erecting a Government latrine was postponed pending the passing of the Ordinance referred to. Since the passing of the Ordinance the Sanitary Board has not made any formal application under the Ordinance for a site in this locality to be set aside for a latrine, perhaps because the existence of a privately owned latrine rendered the necessity less urgent.
In 1897 the Board made formal application that sites for 13 latrines be reserved in the resumed area of Tai-ping-shan in accordance with the approved plan for the laying out of the area, These sites are still reserved, but owing to the fact that very little of the resumed area has been taken up for building purposes only one of the latrines has been built.
The Board asked at the same time for a latrine to be erected at Leighton Hill. It was erected in 1899. They also asked for a latrine near Ship Street and for one at Tai-kok-tsui. The former was built (after the necessary formalities had been complied with) in 1899 and the latter, which took the form of a matshed structure, pending the further development of the village, in 1898.
In 1898 the Board recommended the erection of 2 latrines. Provision was made in the Estimates for 1899 for two latrines and two were erected during the latter year as shown above.
In June, 1899, the erection of 4 latrines was sanctioned by the Governor. The sites were duly published and the latrines together with one additional one making 5 in all were completed in 1900.
The statement that nothing was done in the matter of building latrines in the years 1897-1899 inclusive is, therefore, incorrect.
We would point out here that had not the provision in the Building Ordinance for making privies in domestic buildings compulsory been waived in the face of the strong opposition it evoked from Unofficial Members, the necessity for so many Public Latrines would not have been felt.
As to the want of urinal accommodation referred to in paragraph 12, steps have been taken this year to further increase the accommodation.
11. The question of the provision of an incinerator for carcases of diseased cattle has been delayed owing to the mistaken idea on the part of some members of the Sanitary Board that such an incinerator could be combined in a refuse destructor. The desirability or otherwise of a destructor has been, we need hardly remark, and is still a vexed question, the Public Works Committee of the Legislative Council having unanimously rejected the proposal to purchase a destructor.
It is not the case, however, that nothing has been done towards obtaining an incinerator. The necessary apparatus has been ordered and should shortly arrive in the Colony.
The statement that diseased carcases are frequently disinterred and used as food is misleading. In the first place no such disinterments have taken place except in the case of freshly buried pigs, and the disinterments have not been frequent for the reason that a dead pig is not easily smuggled through the streets.
The officers in charge of the Animal Depôts and the Police in the neighbourhood exercise special precautions to prevent such disinterments.
12. The recommendation regarding limewashing in the villages referred to in paragraph 21 was only made by a majority of the Board.
In the Legislative Council the Bye-law was almost unanimously rejected, only one member speaking in favour of it.
It must not be forgotten that under the existing law a householder whose dwelling is found to be in a dirty condition can be required to cleanse and limewash it within a week. This provision of the law seems sufficient to ensure cleanliness in villages, where owing to the small number of houses inspection is not difficult by the Police officers on the spot who are also Sanitary Inspectors, without subjecting householders to the biennial compulsory limewashing which is enforced in the City.
13. In paragraph 25 the Petitioners state their belief “on good Medical authority” recurring epidemics of Plague would have lessened in virulence and duration had the Government seriously applied itself to the task and not trifled with proposed measures of Sanitary Reform; they quote an opinion of Dr. Lowson recorded immediately after the first visitation of Plague in 1894 that "if proper sanitary precautions are taken no civilized country should ever be the seat of an epidemic of Plague;" and they state that "since 1894 practically nothing has been done on the lines of recognised prophylactic measures against Plague or to improve the Sanitary Conditions of the Colony."
That measures of Sanitary Reform and the improvement of the Sanitary Condition of the Colony have not been neglected the enclosures B. and C. conclusively prove. But they do not contain by any means an exhaustive statement of the measures taken. They were only drawn up in answer to the particular allegations made in the letter of the Chamber of Commerce of the 7th of June last.
In 1894 upon the outbreak of Plague the Sanitary Board nominated a Permanent Committee consisting of Dr. Ayres, Colonial Surgeon, so often quoted in the Petition, Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., and the Captain Superintendent of Police as a working Committee to deal with the epidemic and with those gentlemen were associated later Major H. E. R. James, a very able officer of the Army Medical Staff, and Mr. R. K. Leigh the well-known local engineer and architect,
These gentlemen under the energetic and able direction of Mr. J. J. Francis, who was Chairman of the Committee, adopted extremely drastic measures—so drastic that their action undoubt-