410
fulfilled. That has been proved by Mr. Maconn and one witness, and it is no longer confested. With regard to the rest of the cross-examination I am absolutely at a loss to understand the object of it; aron if the answers were more favourable than they were they would not show incapacity. Mr. Wilkinson informs me that his client does not dispute the mental capacity of the testator. Dr. Edkins might have been an unbusiness-like man; he might not have been a man who was clever in investing his money, or looking after the finances of societies, but that has nothing to do with it; the question is whether he had A reasonable idea of what he was doing and whom he was intending to benefit when he made this will, and of that there seems little doubt. The will was made in 1896, when he had con siderably less money than he had when he died, although during all those years he did not see fit to alter it; under any circumstances supposing there was latterly a lack of, testamentary capacity-though I do not think for a moment that that was so-the question is whether he I have no was able to make the will in 1896. doubt that he was able to do so. As to the
•
question of costs, iu view of the condition of the will, the absence of the testimonium clause,
and the absence of one of the witnesses from
China, I think that the proceedings calling upon the executors to prove the will in solemn form were properly taken. Having gone so far as that it merely remained for them to come into Court as soon as possible after the arrival of Mr. Maconn; this was done, und as the costs of the latter part are not very considerable, it would be difficult to differentiate between them, and under all the circumstances I think I may order costs to be paid out of the estate.
CORRESPO DENCE.
"JAPANESE TYPES."
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS.
SIR, Having received from you Mrs. Pat- ton's long letter referring to my criticism of Japanese Types," and your suggestion that I, should reconsider the matter, I beg to answer as follows the important points of her explana- tion.
Mrs. Patton thinks that a knowledge of the circumstances attending the publication of the work should modify my judgment. She ex- plains that the artist is a young Eurasian girl, entirely self taught, who has never had a lesson in figure drawing in her life, who is hoping to supplement her income by utilizing her facility with the pencil.This confirms my judgment of her work, of which I wrote (Nov. 18): "while remarkably correct in local detail, and giving a very truthful and vivid impression of the people drawn, the drawing is distinctly amateurish in execution." I should naturally bave wished to express the same thing more gently had I known there were special c'aims to sympathy; but there was nothing in the book to inform me that it was not to be judged by ordinary standards.
""
41
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
undoubted talent, she should be warned, against the spirit which prompted her remark: What did very well for a ten cloth would never do for a book." Art (like criticism) demands the truth that is in us Nothing "does very well except the best we ca do. This artist can do better than “Japanes Typos."
Mrs. Patton, eager to prove my hypothesis wrong, refers to her friend's inability to copy correctly. This again shows how right I was in noting the different power of eye and hand. Mrs. Patton twice uses the word “facile " with reference to the hand that wielded the pencil whereas it is only facility that is needed to enable her to do justice to her artistic perceptions.
香菇
I saw one criticism of the book before it came to me for review, and I remember that my unknown confrère spoke of its perfect drawing." Mrs. Patton says that the Daily Press was the only journal to take a different view, a testimonial, sir, which I am you will
sure
snre
now appreciate, as, I am Messrs. Kelly & Walsh, the publishers, and the artist herself, have already done. If a young artist, admittedly untrained, is unanimously informed by an intelligent () press that her work is perfect, it is a kindness to prevent the inevitable result of such flattery. In this case, Mrs. Patton's explanation, and my own judgment of the immanent quality of her work, lead me to think that the artist is not thus to be restrained from advancing to the higher plane reserved for those with her gifts. I fear that Mrs, Patton, from her letter, is not qualified to give her friend the best advice on the making of pictures; and she has certainly missed the moral of my criticism.—I am, sir.
YOUR REVIEWER.
A SINOLOGUE'S "SURPRISING
REQUEST."
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS."
Hongkong 5th December, 1905. DEAR SIR.-Permit me, through you, to sug gest to the London Missionary Society that if it cannot bring itself to hand over to the widow of the late Dr. Edkins the principal sum consti. futing his "
surprising bequest "to the Society it should at least devote the interest on the monies bequeathed to the Society to the sup. port of the testator's widow, who will, as the
result of this bequest to the London Missionary Society, be left in poverty. If this wealthy and professedly Christian Society does as I suggest it will free itself to some extent from the obloquy which it cannot but entail by the acceptance of a bequest made iu defiance of the moral obligation of a husband to provide adequately for the support of his wife after his
death.
A CHRISTIAN.
OVERCROWDING.
24
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS.'
SIR,-Some time ago you published in your columns a report, on the question of "Resump. tion of Insanitary Properties," by H. E. the Mrs. Patton says that it is hoped to give the Governor, and a reply from the Secretary of young lady the opportunity of studying drawing State relative to the manner in which the sub- properly, especially in anatomy; and I would ject should in future be dealt with. When the like to encourage this idea. I wrote: At work is resumed, I would like to suggest that first one is disposed to marvel at the strange the first district demanding attention is that difference between the artist's eye and hand, block in the heart of China town which is until it dawns upon us that for the happy bounded by Lascar Row, Holliwood Road, characterization and scrupulous detail the artist Ahcheong Lane and Possession Street. This has been assisted by the camera.' This dis neighbourhood is shockingly overcrowded with crepancy is now explained by Mrs. Patton's
a population which, because of its manner of explanation, and I need not say I unreservedly life, loves darkness rather than light. The withdraw my hypothesis (not allegation) that buildings occupied by this community are every- the aid of the camera had been invoked.
one of them old, some very old: dark of venture to add my opinion that when the artist's entrance, damp and evil-smelling through their gifted eye gains the co-operation of a properly passages and on most of their floors, for there trained hand that the army of art will be is little chance of any atmosphere, however enriched by a valuable recruit. I am only fresh it may be, combating the state of excessive surprised that Mrs. Patton should have overlook overcrowding which at times, during the cold ed (knowing the circumstances) what a remark-weather, is bound to exist. All of these houses ably encouraging criticism mine was. With the exception of the withdrawal of the camera bypothesis (I used the words "
presume" and seem") the artist has reason to wish my comments to stand unchanged; and to be proud that her work should have evoked them.
"
I
May I further suggest that, if the young lady is to take up the study for which she has
are filled with partitions protected by smoke begrimed hangings or curtains, and form a magnificent incubating laboratory for the plague bacillus which generally begins its deadly work early in the Spring.
Perhaps one of the first efforts which H. E. might make is the inspection of the neighbour- hood above described, and should it not appear
(December 11, 1905,
feasible to carry out a complete renewal of the properties named, it might at least be possible to have the houses changed in character-by removing their inmates to some more healthy and pleasant locality such as exists in the neighbourhood further west in Queen's Road and Witty Street-Yours, &c.
SPECTATOR.
HONGKONG'S EMINENCE
CONTESTED.
A PORT OF NO GREAT IMPORTANCE.
The Sydney Morning Herald says that it is a popular fallacy to regard Hongkong as a A port of any great importance at all. correspondent (Mr. F. Kinghy) addressed our Australian contemporary as follows:-
Sir,-In your issue of the 21st you state that Sydney is the eleventh port of the world. I have heard this statement called in question several times, and the statement made that Hongkong should come in somewhere about fourth. Will you kindly state in your .com- mercial columns your opinion on the above point, and your reason for omitting Hongkong if above is correct. Also you would confer a favour on a good many of us by answering the following query :-Is it usual when stating the status of a port to take the value of imports and exports, or the tonnage of ships entering and clearing?
The Sydney Herald replied :
Hongkong is not the fourth port of the world, or indeed a port of any great importance atall. This is one of many popular fallacies. There are no official trade statistics kept in Hongkong, as there are no Customs duties levied there. The Statesman's Year Book, however, estimates the total trade at 6 millions sterling, of which Chimports are reckoned as 4 millions, and the exports as 2 millions. The trade of the port of Sydney is over 40 millions sterling, or nearly 7 times that of the port of Hongkong. The trade of Brisbane and Wellington (N.Z.) is about on a par with that of Hongkong. The tonnage. which enters the port of Hongkong is certainly very large, aggregating 10,860,000 tons in 1909. whereas the aggregate tonnage that both entered and cleared at Sydney during
the same year was only 5,934,411 tons. Sydney, however, was not visited by 15,803 Chinese junks. There is no doubt that the true measure of the relative
it
importance of different ports is the volume of takes to do the trade. No one would urge trade, not the number of tons of shipping that that the port of Melbourne is more important that the port of Sydney, because of the follow- ing comparison
Tonnage entered Total and cleared. Trade.
£
Tons,
Sydney
5,934,411 41,607,263 Melbourne
6,417,290 32 584,784 "The figures for 1903 are here taken, these being the latest official returns available,”
Another correspondent remarks on the omis- sion of Hongkong among the great ports of the world."
66
1
This aroused still another champion of Hong- kong (Mr. James Maher, of Bowden Bros & Co., Ltd.) who wrote:--
+
The popular fallacy' with regard to Hong- kong appears to have some foundation. I quote the statistics issued from the Office of the Hongkong Daily Press: Hongkong is a free port and there is no complete official return of imports and exports compiled, but the value of its trade is estimated at £50,000,000 per
annum.
(4
During the year 1903
a total of 24,819 vessels, of 10,959,293 tons entered, and 24,966 vessels, of 10,944,055 tons cleared with cargoes. There also entered in ballast 5,615 vessels of 1,221,102 tons, and 5,436 vessels of 1,259,127 tons cleared in ballast."
The Chinese juuks' you speak of do not appear to be included at all-not even seagoing junks-as the Chinese carried trade amounted in all to some half million tons only, carried in some 700 vessels, obvi usly Chinese owned steamers. The traffic was much greater last year owing to the war. I had the statement from excellent authorities, when in Hongkong. that their tonnage figures were just ahead of London and the greatest in the world, for that
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.