Sessional_Paper_1949 — Page 18

14

always been to store this film in Godown No. 5, (a "hazardous godown") as soon as space became available. On the godown warrant the figure-(1) had been altered to ♬ (5), and this was probably done in anticipation of later removal at the time of receipt of the drums. On receiving the godown warrant the owners took no particular note of the number of the godown in which the goods were stored, until by chance the warrant was compared with the insurance policy. The policy which had been taken out with the China Insurance Company had been made for storage in Godown No. 1. It was thereupon altered, and at the same time a higher rate of premium was charged; this was due to the fact that the premium on goods stored in Godown No. 5 was higher than that for No. 1 owing to the former being situated in a building par- tially used for domestic purposes.

51. Although surviving members of the godown staff insist that they under- stood the contents of the drums to be "pieces of old rubber", which, they contend, is why the cargo was entered in the placement-book as

(Kau kau pin sui), we have no doubt that the true contents of the drums were known to at least some of the godown staff. The characters

(Kau pin sui) is an imprecise definition and can undoubtedly possess a number of meanings, among which one of the commonest is "pieces of film". The adjectival prefix (kau) undoubtedly in our opinion seems to bring out this true meaning, not least because it is very unlikely that pieces or sheets of old rubber would be packed in drums.

Storage of the Celluloid Lacquer:

52. Cellulose Lacquer is classed as a dangerous substance in category 4 (1) of the regulations to the Dangerous Goods Ordinance. Eighty cases, each containing 6 one-gallon tins of automobile lacquer were stored in Godown No. 5. This lacquer arrived in the Colony in May, 1947 from the United States, and the owners, the Tonley Company, should have had a licence for its possession and have labelled the cases with a 4" square red label, in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Dangerous Goods Ordinance. It was not licensed, and it was never labelled. The Chemist of the Com- pany professed never to have seen such labels, nor have we any reason to doubt his word. After various vicissitudes the lacquer found its way to the Wing On Godowns, the arrangements for its storage being made by telephone and delivery of the goods being accepted by Lam Sang, godown-keeper of Godown No. 5. The arrangements for handling, disposal and storage of this lacquer are probably typical of the arrange- ments made, with certain notable exceptions, throughout the Colony for the storage of less-obviously dangerous goods prior to the Wing On Fire. From this and other evidence we have no doubt that there was at any rate before this fire, a widespread ignorance of the very existence of regulations concerning handling, marking and storage of dangerous goods.

Insurance Tariff for Storage in the Wing On Godowns:

53. The Wing On Godown No. 2 was rated by the Insurance Association as a non-hazardous godown, and, probably owing to its stone construction, insurance on goods stored in it had from the time of its construction been effected at the minimum premium charged on goods stored in a non-Chinese managed godown, i.e. $2.75 per mille. This godown was of course under Chinese management, and was unique among such godowns in possessing this valuable commercial privilege. The Wing On Company therefore was careful to ensure that no goods classified by Insurance Com- panies as hazardous or extra-hazardous were stored in the godown, as the disclosure of their presence would have implied an increase in premium for all owners of pro- perty stored in the godown. A list of hazardous and extra-hazardous goods was. displayed in the office, so that the staff would know what to accept for storage and what to refuse.

54. Godown No. 1 was of wooden construction internally, therefore a greater fire risk, but it was officially classified as a "non-hazardous" Chinese godown, and in accordance with the tariff of the Fire Insurance Association, owners of goods stored in the godown were charged a premium of $6.00 per mille. At this rate of premium, the proprietors of the godown could accept for storage only goods not excluded by a warranty against storage and were required to ensure that the premises were not used