THREE
been in China for 35 years, and in Hong- kong for about twenty years, and 1 know perfectly well that if any ship came wan- dering into the harbour trusting to a signal from the Harbour Master or to a pilot as to which buoy she should go to, a great deal of confusion, and possibly collisions and danger to life and property will arise. How could a captain possibly, on five minutes' notice, even supposing the weather was clear enough for the Harbour Master to signal him, go to No. 1, 2, 3 or 4 buoy, or whatever the number might be, when he is working his way through Lyemun Pass into a crowded harbour full of native craft and shipping, look up the chart and try to find out the busy to which he is supposed to make fast? The alternative made by you is to employ pilots, but shipping companies for years have always stood out against that. We will not have compulsory pilots here: we don't want them. An effort was made some time ago for an association to start here, but it died a natural death, As far as I can make out, although we have had no particulars of the moorings, the revenue is estimated at $30,000 a year. Basing my calculation on the fact that I have so many moorings in this harbour, I say that the Government charge is an extreme advance on the prices we are now paying for our moorings. If you can satisfy the shipping community, the Chamber of Commerce and the unofficial members that this change is really neces- sary, I would then beg to suggest that we might make a counter offer. The moor- ings have been two or three times relaid to my knowledge to meet the increased length and size of modern ships, and if a scheme could be carried cut by an ami- cable arrangement between the Govern- ment and the shipping companies, no doubt those companies which are going to be affected by the change will be prepared to bear part of the cost, but I would ask your Excellency to consider my counter proposal, that we be allowed to rent our own moorings. That is, from my own experience in Hongkong, a very greab advantage to shipping. I tell my own captains on their outward voyage that when they return six months hence they will have to go to a certain buoy, aac hat stands, and when they come in it is not necessary for them to employ a pilot. I have never employed a pilot, and will not unless my ships go to the wharf, because there very strong currents are running. If you insist on this scheme, it seems to me that with the change of moorings and compulsory pilotage you are imposing great tax on shipping which can be ill borne under existing conditions, and we strongly oppose the scheme your Excel- leney put before us in your letter to the Secretary of State on the subject. I speak with the full concurrence of the members of the Chamber of Commerce, and trust you will make the Secretary of State equally aware of our opposition to your scheme, and I merely now give notice that when the time comes 1 shail novo the rejection of that particular section of the vote. Under the head Im- ports and Exports Department, your Ex- cellency mentioned (page 3) an increase of about $35,000, but you only refer to an increase of $14,000. As a matter of fact, the increase this year, as opposed to last year, is really $85,000, because there is $50,000, or, to be more correct, $49,800, less asked for the purchase of opium. I have gone through the papers, but they are not very clear, therefore I won't labour this question for the moment, but I will refer to it later on. In Miscellaneous Services there is an entry of $1,575. That, of course, although a small thing, the unofficial members welcome, because we think too much cannot be done to encourage interpreters and translators in the Goverument Service, and any reason- able sum asked for will be gladly voted. We cannot but regret the very great charge for loss on subsidiary coin, and this, your Excelloney, without wishing to cast aspersions on the memory of Governors who have gone before you, 's entirely due to want of foresight on the part of some of your Excellency's pre- decessors and their advisers. The total amount of subsidiary coin imported into Hongkong to meet the demand in China amounted to something like $40,000,000. Careful estimates made of the subsidiary coin we require show that we require about two to two and a half million dollars' worth. The whole of the rest of the money has been sold and the Govern- ment, I am very sorry to say, did not realise that the chickens would come home to roost, but they have come home to roost with A vengeance. Of that $40,000,000 possibly about one-third has been absorbed in making jewellery, bul- lion and so on, or otherwise disposed of. Two-thirds of that amount is likely to come back on us, and I have given the Colonial Secretary notice of a question to which I will ask him to reply, which is, "What amount of coin has already been withdrawn by the Government from cir- culation, at what we know to be a very heavy loss, and what, roughly speaking, is estimated to be the further loss likely to be entailed on this Colony on this account?" We realise we have to face this loss, and do not quarrel with the present policy of the Government, but entirely endorse it. We realise very much the sacrifice that is now being made by the Colony, and we can only express the hope that the sacrifice will be substantial- ly utilised in rehabilitating the coin we must keep for our daily use. Reverting to what I said just now about the Import and Export Department, I now come to the question of accounts. It is not the first time I have had to refer to the wav in which the accounts were rendered. Oo page 19 we have the actual expenditure for 1913, the approved estimates for 1914, the revised estimates for 1914 and the estimates for 1915. Now, a casual giance down that table will show a very startling difference between the approved estimates and the revised estimates. That is only a summary, and we have to lock to further pages for the detailed account, and that is where we are handicapped. You merely have two columns instead of three. You have the approved estimate for 1914, and the estimate for 1915, and when you get to compare those figures, all that you know from page 19 is that the difference is very startling. will quote two cases. On page 19 Mis- cellaneous Services, approved for 1914, is placed at $257,128. The amended estimate for 1914 is $748,000, or nearly three times the amount. The estimate for 1915 is $012,262. Of course, I know the bulk of that amount is made up by the increased amount of subsidiary coin
I
198
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.