Sessional_Paper_1901 — Page 562

58

required to issue a summons against the householder or his agent within the meaning of the Victoria Registration Ordinance 1866 by notice affixed to the house to appear before the said Justice who shall thereupon make such order as he may think fit; and in case any order so made shall not be complied with by such house- holder or agent as aforesaid within seven days from the making thereof the said Justice may thereupon impose on the person so refusing or neglecting to obey the said order a fine not exceeding $50 and not less than $10, and in default of pay- ment the person so refusing or neglecting to obey the said order may be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months.'

"1

The next section of the Ordinance gave the Medical Inspector power to enter and inspect. These sections were repealed by ordinance No. 7 of 1883 under which a Sanitary Board was established, and section 3 of that Ordinance gave to any member of the Board or any two resident Medical Practitioners" the same

powers.

Dr. Ayres was a member of the Sanitary Board established under the Ordi- nance, but we cannot find any record of any prosecutions under the section.

It is stated in the same extract that Mr. Chadwick visited the Colony in 1886, and expressed his surprise at finding that so little had been done since his first visit and report.

It was in 1889 that Mr. Chadwick's second visit was made and we have failed to find any record of the expression of surprise attributed to him.

15. With regard to the remarks of Dr. Lowson quoted in paragraph 27 the isolation of contacts was in a measure carried out in 1894 by the Permanent Com- mittee who remove·l over 4.000 persons from Tai-ping-han and isolate them in unoccupied houses in the Western part of the City. They found it impossible to carry the system further.

In 1895 isolation of contacts in large boats was adopted. This was feasible owing to the small number of cases occurring. the total for the year being only 44. In 1896 it was adopted in similar boats during the first two months of the Plague (January and February) when it had to be abandone owing to the large increase in the number of cases from 49 in January to 168 in March. It has not been adopted since as it has not been found possible to carry it out when the number of cases became at all large.

The latrines in 1894 were constantly disinfected an1 that precaution has been adopte in every epidemic since.

The measures taken to abate overcrowding and improve cleanliness have already been described.

16. In paragraph 28 the Petitioners quote Dr. Lowson that "an epidemic in Hongkong could be tackled and got under rapidly if men in sufficient number could be got to do the work."

We regret to say that the experience of 1894 does not justify Dr. Lowson's opinion.

The Permanent Committee had an unlimited supply of men in that year, comprising Police, Soldiers and Civilian Volunteers. for business, as has been mentioned, was brought to a standstill by the exodus of Chinese.

In spite of the many workers and of the most drastic measures the epidemic though undoubtedly confined within narrower limits was not "got under" one day sooner than it ceased of its own accord in the neighbouring City of Cantor where no steps whatever were taken to combat the Plague.