CO129-296 - Public Offices & Others - 1899 — Page 139

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

Copp

C. O.

4512

RECR & 186

Pre 21 FEB 19

With regard to the letter 4th February, 1899, from the Colonial Office I would observe as follows:-

Sections 2 & 3. The inability to comply with the Convention is stated to be due to the fact that, as set out in Sir William Robinson's letter 8th September, 1897, "there is no quarantine station in Hong Kong "where the passengers and crews of infected vessels can "be kept under 'observation', and the alternative 'surveillance' is impracticable here owing to local conditions and the large Coolie traffic". Hong Kong does not stand alone in respect of its having hitherto had no place where 'observation' could be maintained.

But, in so far as the maintenance of passengers from either infected vessels either under 'observation' or 'surveillance' is concerned, those who represented the civilised nations of the world at Venice, and at the preceding Conferences, where the same conditions were laid down, did not contemplate the existence of a country where neither practice could be adopted, and no representative of any nation even suggested that any such country, having regular communication by sea with other countries, did, as a matter of fact, exist.

As regards the crew, the Convention only requires, in the case of infected vessels, that the hitherto healthy persons shall be landed, if this be

Edit History

2026-05-31 14:25:26 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Copp C. O. 4512 RECR & 186 Pre 21 FEB 19 With regard to the letter 4th February, 1899, from the Colonial Office I would observe as follows:- Sections 2 & 3. The inability to comply with the Convention is stated to be due to the fact that, as set out in Sir William Robinson's letter 8th September, 1897, "there is no quarantine station in Hong Kong "where the passengers and crews of infected vessels can "be kept under 'observation', and the alternative 'surveillance' is impracticable here owing to local conditions and the large Coolie traffic". Hong Kong does not stand alone in respect of its having hitherto had no place where 'observation' could be maintained. But, in so far as the maintenance of passengers from either infected vessels either under 'observation' or 'surveillance' is concerned, those who represented the civilised nations of the world at Venice, and at the preceding Conferences, where the same conditions were laid down, did not contemplate the existence of a country where neither practice could be adopted, and no representative of any nation even suggested that any such country, having regular communication by sea with other countries, did, as a matter of fact, exist. As regards the crew, the Convention only requires, in the case of infected vessels, that the hitherto healthy persons shall be landed, if this be

Baseline (Original)

} Copp C. O. 4512 RECR & 186 Pre 21 FEB 19 With regard to the lattar 4th February, 1899, from the Colonial Office I would observe as follows:- Sections 2 & 3. The inability to comply with the Convention is stated to be due to the fact that, as sot out in Sir William Robinson's letter 8th Saptambar, 1897, "there is no quarantine station in Hong Kong "where the passengers and crews of infected vessels can "be kapt under 'observation', and the alternative **surveillance' is impracticable here owing to loenl *conditions and the large Coolie traffic". Hong Kong does not stand alone in respect of its having hitherto had no place where 'observation' could bo maintained. But, in so far as the maintenance of passentors from either infected vessels either under 'observation' or 'surveillance' is concorned, those who represanted tha civilised nations of the world at Tonico, and et the preceding Conferences, where the same conditions were laid down, did not contemplate the existance of a country where nuither practica could be adopted, and no representative of any nation even suggested that any such country, having regular communication by sea with other countries, did, as a matter of fact, axist. As regards the crew, the Convention only requires, in the case of infected vessels, that the hitherto healthy persons shall ha landed, if this ba

2026-05-31 14:25:26 · Baseline

View content

}

Copp

C. O.

4512

RECR

186

Pre 21 FEB 19

With regard to the lattar 4th February, 1899,

from the Colonial Office I would observe as follows:-

Sections 2 & 3. The inability to comply with the

Convention is stated to be due to the fact that, as sot

out in Sir William Robinson's letter 8th Saptambar,

1897, "there is no quarantine station in Hong Kong

"where the passengers and crews of infected vessels can

"be kapt under 'observation', and the alternative

**surveillance' is impracticable here owing to loenl

*conditions and the large Coolie traffic". Hong Kong

does not stand alone in respect of its having hitherto

had no place where 'observation' could bo maintained.

But, in so far as the maintenance of passentors from

either infected vessels either under 'observation' or

'surveillance' is concorned, those who represanted tha

civilised nations of the world at Tonico, and et the

preceding Conferences, where the same conditions were

laid down, did not contemplate the existance of a

country where nuither practica could be adopted, and no

representative of any nation even suggested that any

such country, having regular communication by sea with

other countries, did, as a matter of fact, axist.

As regards the crew, the Convention only

requires, in the case of infected vessels, that the

hitherto healthy persons shall ha landed, if this ba

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.