CO129-274 - Public Offices & Others - 1896 — Page 290

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

74/345.

Memo.

0.0.

17604

REOP

(REG 20 WC 96

285

I can see no grounds whatever for varying or waiving my original recommendation as to the provision of booms. Messrs Meyer and Co. appear to have overlooked the fact that this suggestion was made as a concession, in fact, to their objections to construct a dock; it was an alternative precaution, of course, if they chose to construct a dock, there will be no reason for insisting on booms, which are merely, if I may so express it, a floating dock. But in my judgment, it is essential that one or the other precaution be adopted.

The fact that no such condition exists at the place mentioned in Para. 12 of the letter from Messrs Leigh and Orange is no sufficient reason against booms. The conditions of that installation may be entirely different from those which were submitted to me in respect of Messrs Meyer and Co's proposed installation. I am not aware whether I was ever consulted respecting the place in question. I know that in the case of a proposed installation by Messrs Samuel, I certainly recommended booms strongly, and I have always supposed that this precaution was insisted on (B.746/212 4th April 1893).

17

The

Edit History

2026-05-28 10:28:46 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
74/345. Memo. 0.0. 17604 REOP (REG 20 WC 96 285 I can see no grounds whatever for varying or waiving my original recommendation as to the provision of booms. Messrs Meyer and Co. appear to have overlooked the fact that this suggestion was made as a concession, in fact, to their objections to construct a dock; it was an alternative precaution, of course, if they chose to construct a dock, there will be no reason for insisting on booms, which are merely, if I may so express it, a floating dock. But in my judgment, it is essential that one or the other precaution be adopted. The fact that no such condition exists at the place mentioned in Para. 12 of the letter from Messrs Leigh and Orange is no sufficient reason against booms. The conditions of that installation may be entirely different from those which were submitted to me in respect of Messrs Meyer and Co's proposed installation. I am not aware whether I was ever consulted respecting the place in question. I know that in the case of a proposed installation by Messrs Samuel, I certainly recommended booms strongly, and I have always supposed that this precaution was insisted on (B.746/212 4th April 1893). 17 The
Baseline (Original)
74/345. Memo. 0.0. 17604 ¡REOP (REG 20 WC 96 285 I can see no grounds whatever for varying or waiving my original recommendation as to the provision of booms. Messrs Meyer and Co. appear to have over- Looked the fact that this suggestion was made as a con- cession in fact, to their objections to construct a dock, it was an alternative precaution of course, if they chose to construct a dock, there will be no reason for insisting on booms, which are merely if I may so express it a floating dock. But in my judgment it is essential that one or the other precaution be adopted. The fact that no such condition exists at the place mentioned in Para. 12 of the letter from Messrs Leigh and Orange is no sufficient reason against booms. The conditions of that installation may be entirely different from those which were submitted to me in respect of Messrs Meyer and Co's proposed installation. I am not aware whether I was ever consulted respecting the place in question. I know that in the case of a proposed installation by Messrs Samuel, I certainly recommended booms strongly, and I have always supposed that this precaution was insisted on (B. 746/212 4th April 1893). 17 The
2026-05-28 10:28:46 · Baseline
View content

74/345.

Memo.

0.0.

17604

¡REOP

(REG 20 WC 96

285

I can see no grounds whatever for varying or

waiving my original recommendation as to the provision

of booms. Messrs Meyer and Co. appear to have over-

Looked the fact that this suggestion was made as a con-

cession in fact, to their objections to construct a

dock, it was an alternative precaution of course, if

they chose to construct a dock, there will be no reason

for insisting on booms, which are merely if I may so

express it a floating dock. But in my judgment it is

essential that one or the other precaution be adopted.

The fact that no such condition exists at the

place mentioned in Para. 12 of the letter from Messrs

Leigh and Orange is no sufficient reason against booms.

The conditions of that installation may be entirely

different from those which were submitted to me in

respect of Messrs Meyer and Co's proposed installation.

I am not aware whether I was ever consulted respecting

the place in question. I know that in the case of a

proposed installation by Messrs Samuel, I certainly

recommended booms strongly, and I have always supposed

that this precaution was insisted on (B. 746/212 4th

April 1893).

17

The

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.