Sir C Luo as
As we have accepted the Governor's proposals
there is not much use in sending this complaint out. We had
better answer it ourselves.
The facts are the st. The disastrous typhoon of Sept 06
showed the necessity of a shelter for native craft etc.
The original estimate was roughly fixed at 600,000 dollars
but when it came to the point it proved that the cost would be much greater- about $1,540,000 ● which must be added
another 70,000 for dredging. In present circumstances this
is a very large sum to provide from general revenue and
accordingly the Governor proposed that half should be paid
from balances and half by a temporary additional tax on shipping. (see 11861- for details) Part of this tax-(which takes the form of an increase to the so-called Light Dues)
appears to fall on river steamers- who will probably to some extent
benefit directly. The rest it was proposed to raise by
a half increasing the dues on ocean-going ships by one cent per ten. Subsequently it was decided that the increase should only
be one cent, thus just doubling the existing dues. This is
what the present letter is protesting against.
The scheme is considered to be imperative by the Govern- ment and we have approved it. We regret far more than the P and O C. can, the heavy cost (see desp on 27987) but we have acquiesced. (The exact details of the scheme still await the decision of the Consulting Engineers) Half the cost of the work is being defrayed from balances - i.e. by the general community- and it seems to me per- fectly reasonable that the shipping should pay the rest. The idea underlying this letter appears to be that nobody
should be taxed for anything that is not immediately bene- ficial to him. This is new doctrine, the adoption of which
in this country might inconvenience the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Moreover by parity of reasoning it might be
argued that as certain harbour expenditure is for the benefit of ocean-going steamers only therefore only ocean-going steamers should pay for the
provision of e.g. buoys. The principle is in question.
These shipping firms make their profit by trading with
Hong Kong and their profits may reasonably be taxed.
Moreover para 8 of 11861 shows that the work is really
a convenience to all the shipping frequenting the har-
bour.
The suggestion that Light dues should only be raised to pay for lights is a red-herring of the best type. The dues are raised under section 32 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance as
"Light or other dues" The dues on ocean-going steamers are levied on all shipping which enters the waters of the colony. Nothing is said about lights and it is quite reasonable to argue that they are levied as a toll for permission to use the anchorage. They might equally well be called "Anchorage dues" or "Harbour dues" or "Port Dues" or blackmail if the P & O
prefer it. In fact in 11861 the Governor said that he had thought of calling them 'Harbour Dues" but had decided not to do so as people were used to the old name.
It is worth mentioning that the dues were 24 cents per
ten until Dec 1907.
? Reply that the S of S regrets the necessity of incur-
ring so large an expenditure but that the Government of
the Colony considers it indispensable and that he is not
prepared to reject their advice in such a matter; that the
work is being carried out in accordance with the best
professional advice and that it will be done as economic-
ally as is consistent with efficiency.
that the general community is paying for half of the
cost and that the S of S considers that, having regard to
the present financial situation, they cannot be expected
to do more and that he sees nothing unreasonable in levying
a tax on shipping for improvements to the harbour which that shipping uses even though the particular improvement
in question is not of immediate benefit to ocean-going steamers but that as a matter of fact (see para 8)
of 11861) all shipping really benefits indirectly by the new work. And as to the question of Light dues observe