Sessional_Paper_1886-1887 — Page 407

404

of the Bill; and moreover, my experience as a member of the Sanitary Board con- vinces me that in many instances public opinion and testimony are urgently requi- red to correct misunderstandings and individual convictions and beliefs. I fancy I have heard mentioned more than once that the Sanitary Board is a scientific body and all it has to consider is purely a matter of Sanitary science, indeed I have been asked repeatedly when offering some opposition to a clause in the Bill, whether as a medical man and a scientist, I did not consider that such and such a thing was desirable and even necessary. My answer has always been and will ever be to this effect Is the Sanitary Board a scientific as well as practical body of men? Are we met together to discuss matters of Sanitary science purely or practically? If purely, then I agree with every proposition of any scientific importance put forward to the meeting, and further I would add much to the numerous provisions in order to render them more perfect and more scientific. I would advocate every poor family to have its three acres and a cow, a garden, a conservatory and what not, at the expense of the state or the princely merchants and rich landlords. But if practically as well, then I would oppose the many provisions which in my opinion are unnecessary, uneconomical, and unconstitutional. Some Sanitarians are cons- tantly making the mistake of treating Chinese as if they were Europeans. They appear to forget that there are wide constitutional differences between a native of China and one who hails from Europe. They do not allow for the differences of habits, usage, mode of living and a host of other things between the two. They insist upon the theory of treating all nationalities alike however much they may differ from one another physically, mentally, and constitutionally. Hence arise the several provisions in this Ordinance and Bye-laws in question which I have no hesitation in characterising as wholly unnecessary. One might as well insist that all Chinese should eat bread and beefsteak instead of rice and pork, just because the two former articles agree better than the latter with an English stomach. One favorite argument must here be stated and refuted. It has been stated by some advocates of this Bill that the Government is always adverse to anything like class legislation and that any recommendation of the Sanitary Board to that effect would not likely be entertained. This I must confess does remind one of old times when all class legislation was earnestly sought for to be abolished, but with what results I need not mention. Look over our local Ordinances, how many there are still in force which make clear distinctions between Chinese and Europe- ans. It would only be a wasting of time to quote instances. As long as we govern the Chinese according to our promise given while this Colony was yet in its infancy, viz., to govern them as much as possible in accordance with their manners and customs, and to respect their religion and prejudices, we must of a necessity modify our laws in order to meet their peculiar requirements. Besides, does not common sense alone indicate to us the advisability of legislating especially in many cases to suit circumstances and surroundings?

From an economical point of view, the idea of sacrificing the millions of square feet at an average price of $6 to $7, per square foot is even more ridiculous.* What is this enforced sacrifice for? Simply for the sake of a theory that the Chinese public require all such Sanitary improvements to promote their health and welfare. But I challenge the soundness of that theory. I say the Chinese in general do not require this sacrifice or even desire it. Let the Government ascer- tain the views of the Chinese public in this matter. I have often been told that I was almost always in a minority in the discussion of the various sections of this Bill, but I was and am confident that the public at large, without distinction of races, will support me in most of my contentions. I was often charged also with looking too exclusively after the interest of landlords, but I always denied that charge. I do not only represent the interest of landlords, and personally I am not a landlord, I care for the tenants as much as the landlords, and the poor as well as the rich. It is not for the welfare of the poor to have the valuable space occupied by their small rooms narrowed, in order to provide for a model of a privy, a superb kitchen and a sumptuous backyard of 10 feet wide, while at the same time the wicked landlords continue to charge the same rent or even a higher one for im- provements and increased capital necessary to effect such improvements. I am not aware of any law, except in Ireland perhaps, which will compel landlords to lower their rent to an equitably low amount. Perhaps such law will be enacted here, but for the present at all events, all landlords, like everybody else, will want to get from 7 to 8, per cent net interest on their capital. What is the price of land now per square foot? In the central and most populous parts of China-town, like Queen's Road Central, and Bonham Strand, it is something like $9, or $10 or more, and even in the more distant and less valuable quarters, it is something like $3 or $4. Just fancy the position of the poor tenant if this Bill becomes law,

2