Sessional_Paper_1907 — Page 560

187 (2)

This resolution, to which effect was given by permission of the Government, was mov- ed by Dr. F. W. ('LARK and seconded by Mr. FUNG WA CHUN, one of the Commissioners who now complain that the addition of the words "by the owner" in section 55 of Ordinance 10 of 1901 "constituted a most far reaching and radical alteration".

It is obviously most important that the open space in connection with any domestic building for use as a backyard should be provided by the owner as it is unreasonable to expect that a neighbouring owner or the Crown should permit their property to be used for this purpose. The backyard required by the section is needed not only for the purpose of light and ventilation but also that there may be an open space in which the domestic refuse of the building may be deposited, ard in which the night soil jar may be placed pending the daily removal of its contents. There are no water-closets in Chinese houses and what is known as the pail system is in vogue. Only males, and as a rule only those of the coolie class, use public latrines.

It is therefore not a matter of surprise that to remove any possible doubt on the subject the words "by the owner" were inserted on the first opportunity that offered of amending the section. i.e., on the introduction of Ordinance No. 10 of 1901. Section 55 sub-section 1 of that Ordinance was repealed in the original Bill which became Ordinance No. 1 of of 1903. That Bill was criticised on behalf of European property owners by Messrs. LEIGH & ORANGE, W. DANBY, DENISON RAM AND GIBBS, and PALMER AND TURNER, and it was claimed by these gentlemen that if the words "by the owner" were retained in the Bill

compensation must be insisted upon" (see p. 32 of Architects' Report on the Bill).

This section of the Bill together with several others in respect of which compensation was claimed either by European or Chinese property owners or by both, received the careful consideration of the Government. No provision was made for compensation in respect of this particular section of Ordinance No. 1 of 1903, and at the time the European property owners at any rate appear to have been satisfied with the justice of the decision of the Government in the matter, for under date of the 3rd of December, 1902, a letter was addressed to the then Governor Sir H. A. BLAKE, by Mr. A. SHELTON HOOPER, (one of the Commis- sioners) acting for the European property owners who had petitioned the Governor against the Bill, which opened with the following sentence :-

"The European landowners of this Colony, who submitted a Petition to your Excellency dated the 28th of September, 1902, regarding the Public Health and Buildings Bill, recognise how loyally the principle of compensation has been adopted in the recent amendments thereto. But they venture respectfully to ask your Excellency's further consideration of one instance in which compensation is still, as they consider, improperly withheld."

The writer then goes on to discuss Section 185 of the Bill limiting the height of new buildings. In the result the provision for compensation in certain cases in this particular connection was added to the Bill and now stands as part of Section 188 of Ordinance 1 of 1903.

It is worthy of note that the Bill which became Ordinance 1 of 1903 passed through all its stages in the Legislative Council without a single division. The Legislature therefore unanimously accepted and endorsed the repetition in the Bill of the clause, which had been ou the Statute Book since 1899, now objected to by the Commissioners.

3. The Commissioners would have us believe that the enforcement of Section 175, coupled with concreting and limewashing regulations, has had a disastrous effect on the value of Chinese property. The evidence which the Commissioners cite in support of their contention requires somewhat careful examination for I find that in very many cases the deductions and conclusions contained in the report are not consistent with the evidence from which they are drawn or upon which they are based.

For instance, the statement in paragraph 27 is very misleading. A reference to the Director of Public Works' evidence shows that he made no such admission as is attributed to him. A hypothetical case was put to Mr. CHATHAM and all that he admitted was that on the assumption put to him the owner of the property would presumably "make a con- siderable loss-sufficient to handicap him in any ordinary transaction with regard to the property."