CO129-614-1 Commission of Inquiry into fire at West Point- report 26-5-1949 - 22-12-1949 — Page 47

26

47

reason to doubt his word. After various vicissitudes the lacquer found its way to the Wing On Godowns, the arrangements for its storage being made by telephone and delivery of the goods being accepted by Lam Sang, godown-keeper of Godown No. 5. The arrangements for handling, disposal and storage of this lacquer are probably typical of the arrangements made, with certain notable exceptions, throughout the Colony for the stor age of less-obviously langerous goods prior to the Wing On Fire. From this and other evidence we have no doubt that there was at any rate be- fore this fire, a widespread ignorance of the very existence of regul- ations concerning handling, marking and storage of dangerous goods.

Insurance Tariff for Storage in the Wing On Godowns:

53.

The Ting On Godown No. 2 was rated by the Insurance Association as a non-hazardous godown, and, probably owing to its stone construction, insurance on goods stored in it had from the time of its construction been effected at the minimum premium charged on goods stored in a non- Chinese managed godown, i.e. $2.75 per mille. This godown was of course under Chinese management, and was unique among such godowns in possessing this valuable commercial privilege. The Wing On Company therefore was careful to ensure that no goods classified by Insurance Companies as hazardous or extra-hazardous were stored in the godown, as the disclosure of their presence would have implied an increase in premium for all owners of property stored in the godown. A list of hazardous and extra-

hazardous goods was displayed in the office, so that the staff would know what to accept for storage and what to refuse.

54. Godown No. 1 was of wooden construction internally, therefore a greater fire risk, but it was officially classified as a "non-hazardous" Chinese godown, and in accordance with the tariff of the Fire Insurance Association, owners of goods stored in the godown were charged a premium of $6.00 per millc. At this rate of premium, the proprietors of the go- down could accept for storage only goods not excluded by a warranty against storage and were required to ensure that the premises were not used even partially for domestic purposes. We understand that from time

to time, goods excluded by the warranty were in fact stored there, and