Sessional_Paper_1907 — Page 722

327

There are several paragraphs I would refer to more in detail :—

Paragraph 37.-This was not referred to me at all as my evidence will show.

Paragraph 135.-There is no case quoted. If case were quoted papers could be refer- red to and probably the cause of delay explained. During the 9 years the Surveyor has been here there has not been a case of unnecessary delay in passing drains-the evidence of Mr. LEMM bears this out.

Paragraph 139.-There is only the evidence of Chinese witnesses to bear out this state- ment, and from the evidence it will be seen that over and over again distinctly leading questions have been put to the witnesses. That Inspectors should deliberately break down drains seems to me most unlikely.

SAM It is not an authorised drainage contractor. I have ascertained that about 3 years ago he fixed a trap in Hollywood Road, but with this single exception he has not to the knowledge of the Sanitary Surveyor carried out any drainage work.

About March 1906 and again about 3 months ago he asked for permission to carry out certain drainge works. On each occasion he was told to make an application to the Board in the usual way.

Paragraph 141.-NGAI YUNG ON, the witness referred to, was removed from the list of authorised drainage contractors in the early part of 1904. Previous to this he had been cautioned on several occasions about his bad work.

Paragraph 146.--The modification of the plague procedure here referred to originated in a minute from Dr. PEARSE, after a consultation which I had with him on the subject as to what preventive measures should be undertaken in the winter of 1903-4. His minute was brought before the Board and at a meeting held on the 8th October, 1903, it was decided, on my recommendation, that the cleansing should be carried out by the people themselves with the assistance of the Sanitary Staff.

Paragraph 148.-In my evidence I distinctly stated that the first issue of Carbolacene was made to Chief Inspector DANDY and that a in all likelihood had suggested the use of this disinfectant.

Paragraph 156.-No evidence is proced to support this sweeping statement.

Paragraph 158-This has been fully dealt with in the Colonial Secretary's remarks on the report. I would add that I have over and over again requested the Chinese members of the Board to assist us in any new departure by explaining our intentions to the Chinese, e... last winter when the cleansing operations were altered, in accordance with the finding of the Indian Plague Commission that fleas were the intermediary between infected rats and man, they were requested to try and get the Chinese in Victoria to give up their clothing so that this might be freed of these pests by transmission through the Disinfector.

Notwithstanding that explanatory articles were inserted in the Chinese newspapers by the Government, and that compensation was promised for any damaged articles. up to quite recently no one in Victoria has done this although in Kowloon thousands of articles have been dealt with in this way.

Paragraphs 159-164.—The abominable practice of dumping dead bodies in the streets was in vogue before 1894, the first year in which plague occurred, as was shown by the reports. of the Captain Superintendent of Police.

The establishment of free dispensaries and district hospitals in December, 1905, has had no effect in diminishing this dumping as last year no less than 1,447 dead bodies were left in the streets, etc., in this way.

Paragraph 163.-It is absurd to talk of leaving the disinfection of the houses to the Chinese themselves. It was cleansing that was done in 1903 at West Point not disinfection. This conclusion arrived at by the Commissioners denotes a confusion of evidence in their minds.

Paragraph 166.-It is not a fact as stated that rat-catching coolies are almost left to their own free will, they are under the supervision of Foremen and Inspectors.