CO129-525-5 Colfix road surfacing materials 21-2-1930 - 26-5-1930 — Page 73

Officials/

were prepared to extend to us.

(5)

73

We now come to the fifth test, which was again made on Connaught Road and very adjacent to the test as referred to under item (4). On this occasion, we confess that the Government, probably through pressure, gave us all the facilities required, and the test was duly made. On inspection, however, about two weeks later, it was found that several pot holes were showing, and in comparison with a test of the ordinary Hot Asphalt made alongside the part of the road on which Colfix was applied, it was to be readily admitted that the latter showed up in a better light. Once again, however, we may briefly state that the nature of the test afforded us was a most onerous one, since we had previously pointed out that we did not claim for exceedingly good results on a road like Connaught Road, where there was such heavy traffic, particularly from the steel-rimmed wheels of barrows and other exceptionally heavy traffic, and in consequence, therefore, although we were naturally somewhat disappointed, we were not very surprised that the Colfix showed up in a not altogether satisfactory light. We shall, however, have pleasure in referring further in a subsequent paragraph to this particular item.

As mentioned earlier in this letter, we have given

a summary of the various tests which have been made and with, we hope, an impartial report on each. We wish to make it quite clear that, where our Colfix material nas not shown up to the satisfaction of all, we are quite prepared to admit it and will continue to make any admission of faults where these can honestly be attributed to the quality of our material.

Having dealt with the various tests, we now come to consider the remarks made in paragraph two of your letter, in which you advise that photographic evidence has been produced and which appears to support the view of the Director of Public Works, namely, that our product is "definitely inferior to Asphalt as a road surfacing material for Hongkong, with no compensating advantages in the matter of price". Possibly you are aware that Mr. Newhouse was kind enough to afford us an opportunity of inspecting these photographs one morning after we had made a joint visit to the test on Connaught Road, and we must agree that these photographs do, up to a certain extent, corroborate the views held by the local officials. Do you not think, however, that, as in the case of a personal argument, one can very often see things in a somewhat different light if the points in dispute are viewed from a different angle. We think you must admit this fact, and consequently, after having inspected the photographs which were taken by the P.W.D., we immediately had photographs taken for our own use, but, naturally, from an angle which, in our opinion, was not quite so much to the disadvantage of the Colfix material as the photographs which you have seen must surely convey. We, therefore, beg to hand you herewith three photographs which we had taken, and on comparing them with those which you have already seen, we would be interested to know whether you still adhere to the opinion expressed in your paragraph uwaber two.

While dealing with the matter of photographs, might we also take the liberty of enclosing herewith three photographs which we have recently obtained of work carried out on roads in Macao. These pictures cover the area which was treated some considerable time ago and a testimonial regarding which we had pleasure in attaching to our letter dated 13th September.