CO129-540-7 Dredging of Hong Kong Harbour 26-4-1932 - 1-10-1932 — Page 88

87

objected to the proposed depth of 32 feet on the ground

that 30 feet was sufficient. Their objections were

apparently due to the fact that they were under the impression

that they would be required to contribute an appreciable part

of the cost. Their views in this respect had apparently

changed possibly owing to the fact that they now knew that

the cost would be borne by the local government. Mr. Anderson

added that the Godown Company was a private undertaking in

which certain shipping companies had large interests. The

Company was responsible for dredging a small area immediately

in front of their wharves.

2. As to the difference of opinion on the local

Advisory Committee, Mr. Anderson suggested that the opinion.

of the minority (who were in favour of dredging to 36 feet)

might possibly arise from their interest in the Godown

Company. He also stated that regard had been paid to the

Suez Canal scheme, but as Hong Kong was more or less a

terminal port at which ships very rarely arrived at their

maximum draught, it was not essential to dredge at Hong Kong

to the same depth as in the Suez Canal. Mr. Anderson added

that the largest vessels now visiting Hong Kong were already

berthing at all the wharves of the Godown Company, with the

exception of the new pier.

3. Mr. Anderson explained that Hong Kong Harbour was

well protected and was not subject to heavy seas ex⚫ept

during typhoons. Ample notice of typhoons was received and

shipping as a rule then left the harbour. He thought that

a depth of 1 foot between the bottom of the ship and the

harbour bed was sufficient, especially as there was at present

one berth for vessels drawing 35 feet and by waiting for a

favourable tide, ships of the largest draught visiting

Hong Kong could be berthed at any of the wharves of the

-2-