July 22, 1896.]
prisoner guilty.
another
against the of the same circumstances,
led with.
sentence of nine and ordered all the pro- oner to be handed back
}
TION OF YOUNG GIRLS.
woman, was charged with part in bringing a girl into ith intent to sell her for the pur-
orostitution,
rás not concluded when the Court
20th July.
i charged on Saturday with unlaw- nging a girl into the colony was sont for eight months with' hard labour. Another woman charged with a similar offence sent to guol for twelve months. The Court adjourned until Thursday.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE KEPURI.
regard to backyards should apply to already medy, but it is clumsy, slow, und existing houses, and I am to add that it would It is for the Medical Offic be necessary for the Board to make out a whether houses that have very strong case before the Government as to prevent the floors fro would feel justified in passing any law interfer-lighted and ventilated are fit for ing retrospectively with backyards long since If not, they will have to be closed built over.
they are made fit.
With regard to the question upon whom lies. the onus of proof as to the date of the erection of obstructions in backyards, I am to state that. his Excellency is advised that it is not poble to give any general opinion, because the circumstances of different cases vary widely
In conclusion, Kam to inform you that in all cases of any doubt or difficulty, the Board should ask for the assistance of the law officers of the Crown.-I have the honour to be, &c,
J. H. STEWARt Lockhart,
Colonial Secretary. The following minute was attached :---- The Secretary-Submitted. Copies of the letters referred to in the second paragraph of this letter ought to be in this office, but unfortunately they are not. Had the regular course been followed in HONGKONG SANITARY BOARD. the somewhat extensive correspondence which I understand passed between the Colonial Secretary meeting of the Hongkong Sanitary Board and the so-called Permanent Committee, then the held at the offices on the 16th July non-existence of copies of the letters in question in *F. A. Cooper (Director of Public Works) this office would lie on the officer who was at the ded, and there were also present-Dr. Clark time performing the duties of Secretary to the Board. (Medical Offer of Health), Mr. H. B. Leth-But as the Board either acquiesced in or approved bridge (Acting. Captain Superintendent of the position which the Committee they had elected Police), Mr. N. J. Ede, and Mr. H. McCallum arrogated to themselves in communicating direct (Secretary.)
with the Colonial Secretary, and as the Colonial Secretary appears to have carried on a correspond- The minutes of the previous meeting were spondence does not exist in the office cannot be laid ence with them, the fault that a copy of this corre read and confirmed.
at the door of either the Acting Secretary or myself. However, the practical point now at issue is to get the letters referred to, and I attach a draft of a letter requesting the Colonial Secretary to supply them.
The letter referred to in this minute was as follows
MINUTES.
ILLNESS. OF THE COLONIAL SURGEON.
The President regretted to inform the Board that the Colonial Surgeon was unable to attend the meeting owing to illness.
- PLAGUE AT AMOY.
The following letter was laid before the Board
H.B.M. Consulate, Amcy, 24th June, 1896.
I have the honour to inform you that morning the Port Doctor notified me there is a marked decrease in the preval ence of bubonic plague in this port, but that there are still a few cases.—I have, đc.,
!
H. KING, Assistant in Charge. The Hon. J. H. Stewart Lockhart, Colonial
Secretary.
Ł
CHOLERÀ AT SINGAPORE. communication was received from the Colonial Secretary at Singapore having refer ence to the presence of cholera at that port, and statement was enclosed showing that five cases occurred between the 9th and 16th June.
second letter was received from the same forwarding a copy of the return of cases olers which had occurred during the week the dispatch of the last report, and as the disease seemed to have no further returns would be sent was another outbreak. Some cases curred at Penang and particulars would weekly. The return showed that at one death occurred on the way to and three were discovered after
23
*
DISTRIBUTION AND SEWERAGE WORKS. of Public Works forwarded to pies of plans showing the water and sewerage works in the city of
foll
Hongkong, 2nd July, 1896. Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 1015 of the 30th ultimo on the subject of backyard obstructions and to request that you will be so good as to furnish the Board at your earliest convenience with copies of the letter referred to in para graph 2 of your letter. I have, &c.,
HUGH MCCALLUM,
Secretary.
The Hon. Colonial Secretary. The following was the reply
Colonial Becretary's Office,
3rd July, 1896. Sir, I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 104 of the 2nd instant and to forward for the information of the Board the enclosed copies of the letters from the Permanent Committee and the Housing Committee.-I have the honour, &c..
J. H. STEWART LOCKHART,
Colonial Secretary. Copies of the letters were published in the Press at the time they were printed.
To these letters the following minutes were appended :-
In
isting honBES;
The Medical Officer of Health. the Permanent Committee ander 1894, deals apparently only with houses; that under date August - with houses built subsequently to not understand therefore why there have been quoted in support of the the provisions with regard to ba intended by the Permanent Comm existing buildings, while no mention is Committee's report of July 25th, 1894 tinctly states that it relates to the sani of existing houses, and the last clause says that "the Committee are of opinion i should a backyard be roofed in either wholly Evidently therefore it was intended, at Permanent Committee, if not by the frame Ordinance, that the new provisions with regard backyards should apply to already As to my action in directing prosecutions under, this by-law without first consulting the law officers of the Crown, I can only say that I have hitherto beer accustomed (incorrectly as it now appears) to regard a series of convictions obtained before a Stipendiary. Magistrate under any Ordinance or by-law (as in sou.e measure, confirming the legality of the pro- ceedings, and as such a series of convictions had been obtained in this colony, under by-law 5 inade under section 13 of Ordinance 15 of 1894, prior to my arrival in the colony, I felt justified in concluding that the Court, and that prosecutions under this by-law were question of retrospection had been considered by the. legal, whether the obstruction had been erected by-law by the Legislative Council. It is true that prior to or subsequent to the approval of the sai Messrs. Leigh and Orange have replied to some few of the notices recently issued that "we are informed that you have no legal right to issue any such no tice," but as Messrs. Leigh and Orange gave no legal authority for their information or opinion, nor in fact any clue as to the grounds of the alleged illega lity of our notice, I did not consider it necessary to ask that the matter be referred to the law officers of the Crown, until Messrs. Leigh and Orange had proved the correctness of their contention by secur ing the reversal of the decision hitherto obtained in the Police Court. In view of this decision and its confirmation by the law officers of the Crown, I- would strongly advise the Sanitary Board to urge upon the Government the necessity for so amending the present law as to enable the Board to enforce the provision of adequate ventilation of domestic buildings by the opening of all backyards, whether used as kitchens or not. There are still about 800 backyards in the city of Victoria, west of the Hong- kong Club, which are obstructed in excess of the provisions of by-law 5, and in addition a large number of kitchens of back-to-back houses which have no ventilation whatever (unless we re- gard an eighteen inch square smoke-hole in that light), while many of the squares, courts, alleys, lanes, and passages in the rear of and between adjacent properties have been so occluded as to effectually prevent the ventilation of these'dwellings. Powers are required to open out all these spaces, whether obstructed recently or not, for I am con- vinced that by no other means can these dwellings be rendered even reasonably habitable.
The President-The letter of the 20th July from
the Housing Committee deals exclusively with im- provements to existing houses. (See par 7) On Committee recommend that “in no c reference to peragraphi 6 it will be seen that the case should a backyard be roofed in whole or in part.
of the 29th Inne so far as it deals with the of structural alterations, is composed of the
of
The Secretary-Letters asked for have been sent and are attached hereto. I have read them care- fully and I must say. I fail to find anyhing approaching a clear statement by either of the Com- mittees that the Ordinance they recommend to be passed should not apply to existing houses so far as the obstruction of backyards are concerned. On the contrary, the cry is, let existing houses be lighted the letter of the Housing Committee, dated the 25th and venti ated as far as it is practicable to do so. July, it is clearly and distinctly stated that no back- alteration of the general arrangements. The letter RUCTION OF BACKYARDS.
yards should be roofed in, and that their recommen- leiter was read :---
August 13th deals with few house dations are confined to existing houses In. he letter of therefore appears that the letter of the 25th Juil Colonial Secretary's Office, the so-called Permanent Committee there is a the only one affecting the question of the structure 330th June, 1896. paragraph which states that in existing houses there of backyards, and it is clear that the re ommenda- our letter No. 100 of the can be no remedy, but, the right of visit and search tions contained therein apply to existing !
to inform you that the of every Chinese house with a view to enforcing
The PRESIDENT In reply to the that Sanitary by-law cleanliness and the laws as regards mezzanine floors.
propose that
cop operation, and that ete. Does the "ete." not include the law as to back- Secretary's letter
be sent to:1 15 of 1894 now
yards? The "etc. seems to me to be as likely minutes on these
mation of his Exce or by law No to mean that as the phrase "no_remedy" should Secretary for the inf
mean they are to be excluded. Be that as it may, the Governo
that's letter strospective
the practical points at issue are (1) Has the pre requesting sent law on the subject of backyards a retrospectivement be cal point out that it
action? His Excellency has been advised that it has by the Medical Permanent
not. (2.) Is it necessary that the law should be the
made retrospective:?. If the public health of the 29th
Is of the importance it is held to be, then there was is only one answer, and that is it is absolutely
necessary. There is of course one alternative
The
Por In
and
AD
Mr. Ede the PRESIDENT Eid it had been ruled that the Board had no control
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.