3.
13
6.
It is the case that the proposals detailed
in my previous despatch would bring about an amicable settlement of a vexatious dispute between the Military
Authorities and the Kowloon Golf Club, into which this
Government has inevitably been drawn. The club has no
legal claim, of course; but I am not without sympathy
for it in its plight. For example, admittedly the pavilion which cost approximately $12,000 and has now to be abandoned
was built at their own risk and in full knowledge of the
extreme insecurity of their tenure: on the other hand there
is no reason to think that they were aware when they spent
the money that an enlargement of the military garrison
was being planned on a scale which would necessitate the
whole time use of the range and the consequent disuse of
the golf course.
7.
But I do not advocate the new scheme
altogether or even principally on that ground. My reasons
are firstly that it is very desirable for the sake of a
not inconsiderable section of the community that the
Kowloon Golf Club should be able to continue its existence,
not least because it is the only golf club in the Colony
which admits Chinese members: and secondly because the
proposition is financially sound in itself. In effect,
the Government would be investing not more than $50,000
in land, which would bring in a net return of $2,000 per
annum. This would be an adequate rent for the premises
and, incidentally, would be more than is paid by the Royal
Hong Kong Golf Club for a very much larger area at Fanling.
The latter was given favourable terms in view of the
prospective benefit not only to railway receipts but also
to the general development of the neighbourhood, both of
which have justified such a policy. The site under
discussion