811
ed not I rbvo no envİK-
́Ø Ø ̃¶UDEI ST
-tawo lo ne ritimineƐ .Yai yo botemisso » meg côí ̧là.
Le 00
000.1
001
power id
Da noitrinenust
i
0:0.1
Lavode za ogolnoche bhå
egriant yin»eY
OTT, I
B4A, TOIR....
-
device do
nomerni „dosredni pg at duoliava ei dei rów theng qul brg yr Hulori) œide Indiana a no seji do dnourgenom
de sopod stage not moleivong ana sel ent not wi*ɑFIL .000,0813 PALEze dormeo (aulav
danideyuevo Mojem Dİ ademitra dywiɔg MİNİ
Jimg end of eIda-
reepirud
vonqrd of
Aurest edd
O
-
-
Kol of 0 to droɗs rub es Joan O
Pcb yltesto si JI
(nicke vraq drec je si di ea nedved
i dodð dreggur I Fun pernivtee wist edd
O iv ut eam IIIJs fon presied on to Sult
Unenqulov & cnt (sim „di to otwora
י
ideil. Bre to ve 15 tiraf di settem edit saat ' Ivone Jos.arere voð
Worker of of the doer logonom end gnisingover kno sunez to "prŁD
70% stand of stágir slod· snt zaittel na deveral e to stil ogreva ent to and pra
WEST VAN OTore v enoit >IDE we engitiboos
י ་
+
D ME ON CHENGT EDCOil on day en gaisa avert
oil ug suit to
cove 8* YTIE)
ei demoni ein
elgong you re janet meo merro socuri qTE VE snemnt odovino sad er Tabivɔng (ytzo ist beencoil
erit
-
119
the use of public wharves for ferry work is forbidden by the Piers Ordinance No. 11 of 1899 Section 12 the question resolves itself into one concerned primarily with the wharf rights. The question is difficult, as only some of the points that arise are dealt with under the Piers Ordinance, but not insuperable; the main difficulty lying in the fact that some wharves on both sides of the Harbour have been leased for long terms, in most cases to 1949, and there is nothing but legislation and/or com-
whatever -pensation to prevent the use of my of these wharves, the use to which they are now boing put, being used for ordinary ferry purposes, if a suitable pair, one on either side, could be acquired by any one who wanted to run a ferry.
A good service requires three wharves on the Hongkong side and two on the Yaumati side to the exclusion of other wharves; and it is the exclusion of these other (long lease) wharves that becomes the difficulty. But I take it that ferry rights are only incidental to the lenses of a wharf, awept in special cases such as the Star Ferry: if indeed the right is not distinctly to some extent excluded by the words "sole use" in the section of the Piers Ordinance already quoted: for each has been let singly by the Government on its om merits, and not as one of a pair, as required for a ferry. If therefore ferry rights could be definitely excluded from all the piers onthe one side, it would not be necessary to consider the question of those on the other side. The inclusion of the extra condition in an existing long lease might nem compensation, though the claim to it would seem small in many cases, such as the Stem- -boat wharves, Douglas Co., P. & 0. etc., and if the suggestion is to be carried any further, it would naturally be necessary to deal only with the side that has the fewer wharves to be considered: that is the Kowloon side. On the Hongkong side it would only be necessary to note that there are three harves, the Jubilee Street, Western Market and Eastem Street wharves, which are and probably will remain the most convenient for ferry
work,