March 24, 1908.]
that if the Buildings Odinance was carried out it would be invaluable to a large section of the community, and it was their business to see that the regulations of the Board were properly carried out without undue friction. Here was oase in point. He had heard time after time of bardship being inflicted on Chinese who, when they got an order like the present, never thought of proceeding further against what appeared to be the wishes of the Board. There was a growing antagonism to the enforce ment of that Ordinance. but letters were sent out in the name of the Board when appeal had been presented. It was very rare that people would stand up against the Board, and send in another application. Certainly that letter showed that the manager had ideas of his own. That was the second or third time that that point had been before the Board. It supported what he had heard about the large number of osses where hardship had been inflicted through a rigid application of the regulations. When Dr.Clarke's predecessor was in the chair, he gave him (the speaker an assurance that in future no such letters would be sent out without the matter having been before the Board. He would ask the Chairman to renew the assurance given the Board eighteen months ago by Dr. Atkinson that in future no applica- tion for a modification of regulations be treated in that manner. He objected to being respon. sible for any reply to an rpplication which he bad never seen.
Mr. HOOPER-I would like t› ask whether the Secretary had the authority of the Board, and if so, at what meeting was it given. Will the minutes of the meeting be produced at which the Board decided that lette- should be written
The CHAIRMAN-I certainly was under the mpression that every application for exemption was submitted to the Board. In this partionlar instance I don't see that any application has been made to the Board,
Mr. HEWETT-There is an official letter from the Company asking for a modification of the regulations.
The Chairman-You refer to this memo randum from the manager?
› Mr. HEWETT--It is not a memorandum. 1 in a letter from the manager.
The CHAIRMAN read the letter which informed the Board that a large portion of their premises consisted of woodwork and iron,
Mr. HEWETT-In reply to that a letter was sent as from the Board. That letter was perfectly unjustifible.
Hon. Mr. BEEWIN-Question.
The CHAIRMAN-The reply was-In reply to your letter I am instructed by the Board that it appears on inspection there is a large portion of unpainted woodwork which should be limewashed. Have it done with as little delay as possible.
*
Mr. HEWETT-Quite 80. He is directed by the Board. I have no knowledge of the Board having made such a direction.
The CHAIRMAN-The Secretary acted on the understanding that he did not regard thant as an application to the Board. With regard to the assurance you ask I shall be only too pleased to give you an assurance that every application should be laid before the Board, This particular one did not pass through my handa. I can understand it might have been regarded not as an application to the Board.
1
|
Mr.HEWETT—I know there are constantly complaints in the Chinese community as to the manner in which the regulations are enforced. It seems to me we ought to enforce them with as little frictio as possible; and much of that friction is caused through the receipt of letters which are written as if they came from the Board. Had it been before the Board I believe this application would have been granted. The principle is a very important one. I am very glad to have your assurance,
The SECRETARY-May I explain en far as I am concerned in this matter. In the first place Thava had instructions from the Colonial Seore tary that all letters must be written by the direction of the Board.
|
Hop. Mr. BEEWIN-It is a legal question, I think soos But N
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE
REPORT.
meeting. When that application came before him it was sent to the Medical Officer of Health, who with the President, formed a sub-committee to deal with all applications in connection with limewashing. That matter as to whether anpainted woodwork should be limewashed had been dealt with by the Board on November 5th, 1903, and in accordance with that decision and the instructions that ordinary routine corres pondence was to be sent out in the name of the Boar!, be despatched the letter in question as part of the ordinary correspondence.
Mr. BADELEY-Is there any application for exemption in these papers?
The CHAIRMAN —No,
The SEC (ETARY: then stated that the letters he had received this year up to date numbered
· 14003, and during that time there had been five Board meetings! If he were to submit all the received that would be about 200 at each
Mr. BADELEY—Then, there is no application. Mr. HOOPER-It anyone makes an applica. tion for an exemption, are the sub-committee to be the judges of that and not the Board ?
The CHAIRMAN-The whole trouble has arison through the fact that that memorandum was not regarded as an application.
Mr. BADELEY-It seems to me, sir, that is not an application.
Mr. HEWETT It is not a memorandum. It is a signed letter from the manager, which to the ordinary business men forms an application. Hon. MR. BREWIN-Would you mind reading it?
The CHAIRMAN read the letter.
Hon Mr. BREWIN-Is that an application for exemption?
Mr. HOOPER That is meant for an applica- tion.
Mr. H&WETT-You must take it in conjuno tion with the reply ten days later, by which time the manager of the laundry presumed the application would be before the Board. The secretary writes "in reply to your letter, I am instructed by the Board to inform you that it appears on inspection. to have it cleansed with as little d-lay as and to request you possible." The one is a distinct application for exemption from limewashing. Ten days later he is informed that with regard to that particular letter the Board authorised that the work must go on.
Hon. Mr. BREWIN-We are all agreed that an application for exemption should be referred to the Board. This is a misunde standing of which I might have been guilty myself. It is unfortunate that there should be such a differ.
ence
between business English and official English. I hop the public and the anofficial members will pardon us,
The CHAIRMAN-The application is that the bare woodwork be exempt from limewashing.
Mr. HOOPER moved that the application be granted.
Mr. HEWETT seconded,
|
217
carried out by the inspectors at present was transferred to the officers of the Building Authority it would be more expensive. ««Hə thought the matter might stand over, for twelve months. Mr. Hooper was certainly in a position to say whether there was likely to be President) thought they ought to us content any work in Kowloon, He, (the with the appointment of an additional foreman scavenger, which the report also recommended,
Mr. HOOPER, in moving the adoption of the report, said he was surprised to find it was not a unanimous report. Proceeding, he remarked that the sub-committee had found that several duties were carried out by the Board's inspectors for the Public Works Department, duties with which the Board had no concern and in respect of which they had no jurisdiction. It would be admitted that if their servants häd not those daties to perform there would beɛno necessity for additional inspectors. He would go furher and say they would do with less than they bad to-day. It was estonishing to find that the 8 oretary now signed for the Building Authority. the Governor having delegated that power. Way, he did not know. The Secretary had no technical knowledge. That, he must say, was something that required righting. He thought that should be brought to
the
notice of His Excellency, and that when the Legislative Council asked to sanction the estimites the relation between the two authori les should be discussed. He was sure His Excellency did not know that part of the money voted for sanitary charges Was devoted to the Public Works Department.
Board and the Building Authority must overlap. Mr. REWETT said the duties of the Sanitary There was an old maxim that a man cannot serve two masters, and it war, in his opinion, undesirable that an official should work part of his time for the Sanitary Board and another part for the Building Authority conference between both bodies to consider the
He suggested question of the allocation of the work,
Hon. Mr. W. CHATHAM thought that the duties which the auitary inspectors did for the Building Authority were trivial. If these we e to be taken out from the inspectors it would mean that a separate set of overseers would have to be employed to go round to look at those trivial matters. Again they would be apt to create friction. The great talk had been recently that fall information should be given at once of everything requiring to be done. If they separated those matters notices would be sent in at different times from the two authorities.
<
Mr. HOOPER rejoined that that was exactly what took place to day. He had received six On being put to the vole the Chairman notices-three at diffrent times from the declared that the motion was lost.
Sanitary Board and three from the Building Authority.
WATER TANKS.
An application for permission to erect a a water tank in a back yard was received.
Mr. BADEL#Y-What is it for ? The PRESIDENT –To store water. Mr. H&WETT-If we grant his one we may have hundreds of applications, especially at this time.
The application was refused, BANITARY BOARD V. BUILDING AUTHORITY. Mr. HEWITT moved that the matter marked “confidential" be treated as ordinary business.
Me. Lau CHU PAK seconded.
The PRESIDENT-I see no reason why it should not come before a meeting of the Board. The PRESIDENT explained that at last meeting a recommendation was received from the Medical Officer of Health for the appointment of sa additional inspector of nuisances for Kowloon owing to the increase in the amount of ranitary work in that part of the Colony. It was referred to a sub-committee consisting of Messrs, Hooper and Humphreys and himself to consider the question and report. The report was now ready. It was signed by both Mr. Hooper and Mr Humphr ys, but he had not felt justified in signing it.
The report expressed the opinion that it was not necessary to appoint a sani ary inspector, because the sub-committes did not anticipate any immediate growth of Kowloon, and point- ing out that sanitary inspectors had to dis. charge duties for the Building Authority as well as the Sanitary Board.
The PerSIDENT said he was uns ble to sign the report because he considered that if work
1.'
The PRESIDENT said the work done by the · inspectors here was precisely the same as at home. They were not called upon to attend to any technical building work. He thought the present arrangement was the most economical: It was not wise to have a double set of inspectors, Mr HOOPER maintained that that was what took place at pressat.
|
,
t
The PRESIDENT thought the matfor should be left to a committee.
Mr. HaWETT said it was olearly a matter to, to be discussed between the two departments.
The PRESIDENT moved as an amendment that the Board recommend the appointment of an additional foreman scavenger.
Hon. Mr. W. Chatham seconded. Mr. HoopEE said if the report accompanied that recommendation to His Excellency would withdraw his motion.
'This was agre d to, and the discussion ended,
MORTALITY STATISTICS. For the week ending March 3rd, the death rate per 1,000 per annum of the British Foreign and Chinese community, excluding the army and navy, was 14.1 as against 14.3. for the corresponding week of last year,
LIMEWASHING..
The number of houses limewashed during the fortnight ending March 13th is 4,375 in the eastern, 3,765 in the central and 3,755 In Las western district.
BREEDKES OF PLAGUE, The rat return, which was laid on showed that out of 658 rats caught weekj ending March 10th 48 were
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.