Sessional_Paper_1907 — Page 268

Pages 2351 to 2855.

Hongkong

Hansard for 1900/1901. Page 21.

See Mr. Turner's evidence. 2597/2603.

185 (8)

37. Neither the Building Authority, Principal Civil Medical Officer, nor Medical Officer of Health, or anyone else is able to say exactly what it does thean, but the inference is that houses of more than 50 feet in depth having two main frontages in different streets require double as much open space in the rear as is required by similar houses having only one frontage but which are back to back or abut against a cliff.

38. The unworkability of this sub-section has in fact been recognised by its non-enforcement in the case of nearly all the many Chinese houses in the Colony that are more than 50 feet in depth.

39. The Honourable the Director of Public Works admitted in his evidence that the Government had received premia and had been for years receiving revenue in the shape of rates and Crown rent from land which should have been devoted to wider roads and more roads and scavenging lanes.

40. In other words, that the Government had been profiting by the insanitary condition of the Colony. That being so, some compensation at least should be made to property owners for such costly re-constructions as come under this section (175), and the consequent shrinkage in the earning power of the property.

41. It must be remembered that in the great majority of cases, the Government through the agency of the Sanitary Board in forcing owners of property to comply with sub-section 1 of section 175, compel them to create a breach of section 140 in respect of kitchen space.

42. Ilitherto the Government have forced the compliance on the one hand and winked at the attendant breach on the other, which is obviously a most undesirable state of affairs and quite indefensible on ady ground whatever.

43. The numerous changes in our laws respecting property and the fact that these changes have in many instances had the effect of reducing values, coupled with the uncertainty that prevails as to still harsher laws being enacted, render businesslike calculations almost impossible, engender a feeling of uneasiness and want of confidence, and thus keep investors aloof.

44. The origin of sub-section 1 of 175 can be traced as far back as Ordin- ance 34 of 1899 (section 7, sub-section A) which reads: "Every domestic building "must be provided with an open space in the rear, &c., &c."

45. In a subsequent Ordinance, No. 10 of 1901, (section 55, sub- section 1) the same clause was altered to read " Every domestic building must be provided by the owner with an open space in the rear, &c., &c." The words added constituted a most far reaching and radical alteration notwithstanding which the Attorney General in introducing the Consolidated Ordinance (10 of 1901) to the Legislative Council said: "In substituting a single Ordinance for the "fifteen it repealed it had been found necessary to inake some alteration in the "wording of some of the enactinents consolidated so as to preserve uniformity of language and prevent undue repetition but that nearly the whole of these "amendments were purely formal and the subs ance of the law remained entirely "unchanged."

แ

46. It seems almost inconceivable that the Attorney General should have been so blind to the tremendous significance of these three words "by the owner"

47. It has been shewn in the evidence before the Commission that sub- section of section 175 of No. 1 of 1903 which is an exact copy of section 55 sub-section 1 of 10 of 1901 has cost the landlords of Hongkong very large sums of money and will if not repealed cost them many tens of thousands of dollars more, for which there can be no doubt the addition of these three words "by the owner "in the 1901 Ordinance and their reproduction in the 1903 Ordinance are almost entirely responsible.

48. It has proved most unfortunate for property owners that the speech of the Attorney General in introducing the 1901 Ordinance was such as not to arouse