Page 334
Inland Lot 1523 were not of sufficient size to carry off the abnormal flow of water, I would point out that Section 63 of Ordinance 15 of 1889 required the owner of that lot to make provision at his own cost for the escape of any waters, the flow of which was interfered with by his operations.
The landslips are evidently due in the first place to the want of, and afterwards to the insufficiency of, support for the bank and I presume the lessee can be held responsible for this. No power was contained in Ordinance 15 of 1889 under which the lessee could be compelled to construct a retaining wall.
If the Government undertake to reconstruct the wall, I presume it will be as an act of grace or because it is considered expedient in the interests of the public.
The estimated cost of reconstructing the portions of the wall which have failed and of strengthening those portions which still remain is $7,000. Mr. Ormiston, on behalf of the Mercantile Bank of India, has suggested that Government should defray two-thirds of the cost of the work but, if any such liability is undertaken by Government, possibly half the cost would be a sufficient contribution.
Mr. Wei Yuk has given me to understand that he would be prepared to refund any sum the Government may contribute when he is in a position to afford to do so. He has recently been seriously embarrassed financially on account of being called upon to make good the defalcations of a friend for whom he had become security. I am unable to say whether there is any likelihood of Mr. Wei Yuk finding himself in a position to refund any amount which the Government may expend in connection with the work.
(sd.) W. Chatham,
D.P.W.
26th. February, 1907.
Page 335