J. S. & S. LTD.
• 2
งง
27.9.32.
29
proposals because
(1) It did not agree with the contention that
Hong Kong harbour was expensive compared with other
ports in the Far East or elsewhere.
(2) Coastal Ports such as Canton, Swatow and
Foochow offered few of the facilities and little of
the security of Hong Kong.
Furthermore, the Government contended that
(1) Any reduction in the scale of light dues
would no doubt necessitate a corresponding increase
in some other form of taxation.
(2) That a system of compounded fees was one which penalised the occasional ship as against the frequent caller and, in the Government's opinion, was less equitable than paying in proportion to the use
made of the port facilities.
To this the Chamber replied on 11th August that (1) It did not appreciate why a reduction in the scale of light dues would necessarily involve a corres- ponding increase in some other form of taxation, as the current accounts would appear to indicate that a surplus might reasonably be expected on the basis of present
taxation.
(2) It was not clear what bearing the reference to the facilities and security of Hong Kong had in comparison with China coast ports, and
(3) That although a system of compounded fees