CO129-614-1 Commission of Inquiry into fire at West Point- report 26-5-1949 - 22-12-1949 — Page 46

25

46

film in Godown No. 5,(a "hazardous godown") as soon as space became available. On the godown warrant the figure (1) had been altered to E (5), and this was probably done in anticipation of later removal at the time of receipt of the drums. On receiving the godown warrant the owners took no particular note of the number of the godown in which the goods were stored, until by chance the warrant was compared with the insurance policy. The policy which had been taken out with the China Insurance Company had been made for storage in Godown No. 1.

It was thereupon altered, and at the same time a higher rate of premium was charged; this was due to the fact that the premium on goods stored in Godown No. 5 was higher than that for No. 1 owing to the former being gituated in a building partially used for domestic purposes.

51.

Although surviving members of the godown staff insist that they understood the contents of the drums to be "pieces of old rubber", which, they contend, is why the cargo was entered in the placement-book as

(Kau kau pin sui), we have no doubt that the true contents of the drums were known to at least sume of the godown staff. The charac- ters (Kau pin sui) is an imprecise definition and can un- doubtedly possess a number of meanings, among which one of the commonest is "pieces of film". The adjectival prefix (kau) undoubtedly in

our opinion seems to bring out this truc meaning, not least because it is very unlikely that pieces or sheets of old rubber would be packed in drums.

Storage of the Celluloid Lacquer:

52.

Cellulose Lacquer is classed as a dangerous substance in category 4 (1) of the regulations to the Dangerous Goods Ordinance. Eighty cases, each containing 6 one-gallon tins of automobile lacquer wore stored in Godown No. 5. This lacquer arrived in the Colony in May, 1947 from the United States, and the owners, the Tonley Company, should have had a license for its possession and have labelled the cases with a 4′′ square rod label, in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Dangerous Goods Or- dinance. It was not licensed, and it was never labelled. The Chemist of the Company professed never to have seen such labels, nor have we any