38
A. J. S. LACK
that the dredger which they were buying was in every way fitted for the purposes in which it was being put.
.
**
The Director of Public Works said in reply that he welcomed the opportunity which was given him to contradict the gross mis-statements which appeared in the article to which his Honourable Friend alluded. The "Canton River" had been bought by the same firm from which the Government purchased the "St. Enoch". It was brought here in 1899 having been acquired as a second-hand vessel from one of the home ports to perform the work which ultimately devolved upon the "St. Enoch". He said that the firm in question had paid some £6,000 for repairs and work on the vessel before it was sent to the East, and he thought that in itself was a guarantee that she was not in the best condition when they purchased her. He was unable to give the relative dates of construction of the two vessels but did not think anyone could come to the conclusion that one was a more up-to-date vessel than the other. He reminded members that the "Canton River" had been sunk in the typhoon of November, 1900 and had lain for 8 months at the bottom of the harbour, "a circumstance scarcely calculated to improve the condition of any vessel of that type." With regard to the question of price, he hoped that he was not revealing any secrets but he had ascertained that at the present moment the "Canton River" was being offered for sale at £22,000 as compared with the £15,000 which the Government required for the "St. Enoch". He pointed out that this was practically 15% more instead of $100,000 less. In regard to efficiency, he said that it so happened that the vessels had conducted operations exactly similar in kind in this harbour. The result had been that the "St. Enoch" was found to perform 34 trips during which she conveyed 700 tons each time, as compared with the "Canton River's" 3 trips with 400 tons each time, a total of 2,100 tons for the "St. Enoch", as against 1,200 tons for the "Canton River". Having in some triumph quoted these figures he concluded that it was almost unnecessary for him to speak further on the relative merits of the two vessels, but thought that some reference had been made to their inability to dredge Causeway Bay. In that connection, he pointed out that the "St. Enoch" drew 13 ft. 5 in. of water when loaded and the "Canton River" drew 1 ft. less so that in no case was either of the vessels capable of dredging Causeway Bay "without performing a vast amount of absolutely unnecessary work".
He finally routed the Unofficials by pointing out that the "St. Enoch" was capable of dredging a depth of 48 ft. as compared with the "Canton River's" 35 feet. It was not of course suggested that their depths would have been appropriate for the typhoon shelter which was to be built, but nevertheless, these figures appeared so to have so bemused the Unofficials that they raised no further comment.
The Governor had the last word. In the course of a speech at a following meeting, he said: "I have alluded to the dredger. At the last meeting of Council, in answer to the question from the hon. member on my right (Hon. Mr. Slade), the Hon. Director of Public Works gave full information regarding that purchase. I think we may say it was a good bargain, and I hope that its acquisition will reduce the cost of the typhoon shelter. I may remind you that if the dredger had been sold out of the Colony we should have had to pay monopoly rates for whatever work we had to do, and I have good reason to believe it was likely to be sold out of the Colony. Indeed within 48 hours of our acceptance a firm offer was made. She was however surveyed under working conditions and found to be in every way sound and fit for our purpose. I may add to the figures given by the Hon. Director of Public Works when he contrasted the capacity of the "St. Enoch" with the "Canton River" that the maintenance of the one compared with the other is as 44 to 7 in favour of the "St. Enoch".*
**
38
A. J. S. LACK
that the dredger which they were buying was in every way fitted for the purposes in which it was being put.
.
**
The Director of Public Works said in reply that he welcomed the opportunity which was given him to contradict the gross mis-statements which appeared in the article to which his Honourable Friend alluded. The "Canton River" had been bought by the same firm from which the Government purchased the "St. Enoch". It was brought here in 1899 having been acquired as a second-hand vessel from one of the home ports to perform the work which ultimately devolved upon the "St. Enoch". He said that the firm in question had paid some £6,000 for repairs and work on the vessel before it was sent to the East, and he thought that in itself was a guarantee that she was not in the best condition when they purchased her. He was unable to give the relative dates of construction of the two vessels but did not think anyone could come to the conclusion that one was a more up-to-date vessel than the other. He reminded members that the "Canton River" had been sunk in the typhoon of November, 1900 and had lain for 8 months at the bottom of the harbour, "a circumstance scarcely calculated to improve the condition of any vessel of that type." With regard to the question of price, he hoped that he was not revealing any secrets but he had ascertained that at the present moment the "Canton River" was being offered for sale at £22,000 as compared with the £15,000 which the Government required for the "St. Enoch". He pointed out that this was practically 15% more instead of $100,000 less. In regard to efficiency, he said that it so happened that the vessels had conducted operations exactly similar in kind in this barbour. The result had been that the "St. Enoch" was found to perform 34 trips during which she conveyed 700 tons each time, as compared with the "Canton River's" 3 trips with 400 tons each time, a total of 2,100 tons for the "St. Enoch", as against 1,200 tons for the "Canton River". Having in some triumph quoted these figures he concluded that it was almost unnecessary for him to speak further on the relative merits of the two vessels, but thought that some reference had been made to their inability to dredge Causeway Bay. In that connection, he pointed out that the "St. Enoch" drew 13 ft. 5 in. of water when loaded and the "Canton River" drew 1 ft. less so that in no case was either of the vessels capable of dredging Causeway Bay "without performing a vast amount of absolutely unnecessary work".
He finally routed the Un-officials by pointing out that the "St. Enoch" was capable of dredging a depth of 48 ft. as compared with the "Canton River's" 35 feet. It was not of course suggested that their depths would have been appropriate for the typhoon shelter which was to be built, but nevertheless, these figures appeared so to have so bemused the Un-officials that they raised no further comment.
The Governor had the last word. In the course of a speech at a following meeting, he said: "I have alluded to the dredger. At the last meeting of Council, in answer to the question from the hon. member on my right (Hon. Mr. Slade), the Hon. Director of Public Works gave full information regarding that purchase. I think we may say it was a good bargain, and I hope that its acquisition will reduce the cost of the typhoon shelter. I may remind you that if the dredger had been sold out of the Colony we should have had to pay monopoly rates for whatever work we had to do, and I have good reason to believe it was likely to be sold out of the Colony. Indeed within 48 hours of own acceptance a firm offer was made. She was however surveyed under working conditions and found to be in every way sound and fit for our purpose. I may add to the figures given by the Hon. Director of Public Works when he contrasted the capacity of the "St. Enoch" with the "Canton River" that the main- tenance of the one compared with the other is as 44 to 7 in favour of the "St. Enoch".*
**
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.