May 27, 1907.]
86. In this connection, Mr. A. Ough, Civil Engineer, and partner of the firm of Messrs. Leigh, and Orange, made several tests of mortar taken from works being carried out under their L supervision.
87. A copy of Mr. Ough's report with the results of the tests he applied, and the tests applied by the Building Authority, is hereto annered,
88. On page 5 of Mr. Ongh's report, com parative tests made by the Building Authority and Messrs. Leigh and Orange in five cases are given, and from it a strong case is made out for a further and an independent examination and tests of the mortars before prosecutions are instituted by the Government.
89; We commend to the attention of Your Excellency Mr. Ongh's report, with a view of further evidence on the subject being obtained.
90. The concreting of floors and their maintenance are governed by sections 111, 112, and 140 of the Ordinance.
91. By the first of these sections, 111, the ground surface of every domestic building shall be properly covered with a layer of not less than 6 inches of good lime or cement concrete finished off smooth, and the ground surface of every basement, cook house, back yard, &c., shall be properly covered over with a layer of good lime or cement concrete not less than 6 inches thick finished off smooth, with not less than 2 inches of cement concrete or with hard glazed bricks, &o., &c, or with such other material as may be approved by the Board. Provided always that this section shall not apply to any existing domestic building, the ground surface of which has been paved to the satisfaction of the Board in accordance with any existing law or bye-law, and which is so maintained.
.
92. By section 112, where the ground surface of any domestic building, cook house, &c., &c., is or has been paved or covered over with impervious material, and such material has been subequally broken, excavated or otherwise disturbed, or has perished, it has to be made good to the satisfaction of the Board, upon the completion of any work for the execution of which the same has been broken or otherwise disturbed, or within 14 days from the receipt by the owner of written notice from the Board to do so.
93. By section 140 every kitchen floor shall be properly paved or floored with cement conorete or other non-absorbent material, approved by the Building Authority.
94. So far as the repairing of the floors is concerned, much hardship has been created by the Authorities in a large number of cases requiring the owner to re-concrete the floor, whereas the actual damage to the floor was conflued to the superficial covering of same having become slightly defective. No such power is given in the Ordinance to compei an owner in such case to re-concrete, the words being to "make good". These words are given in the notice (Sanitary Board 2) but at the instigation of sothe officer and without the autho rity of the Board, the words "make good" have been deleted and the words +6 to re-concrete" substituted, which words have a much wider application, and not required by law.
95. The Sanitary burveyor, Mr. Carter, admits this allegation and in justification says he has taken too high a standard for concrete in this Colony.
96. In 1905 about 1,700 notices were served to re-concrete, and from an examination made by some of your Commissioners during this year, it was found that in many cases very superficial repairs to the surface of the floors were all that were needed, and in other respects they were not in a state to need re- ooboreting.
97. The needless waste of money which owners have been called upon to expend has been quite unjustified and has cost many thousands of dollars, not taking into consideration the loss sustained through the resultant dislocation of business or the bribes which have been paid to inspectors for the exemptions they had no power to lawfully grant, and which from the evidence adduced must amount in the aggregate to a considerable sum of money, the usual charge for such exemptions being apparently $25 for
yard or floor,
3. In many cases it would appear that not only wore inspectors guilty of receiving bribes for unlawful exemptions but that the notices
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
themselves inasmuch as the law provides for surface yards virtually none. The evidence is conclusive that
were illegal and unnecessary ƒ as a disinfectant and germicide there has been”. being made good and already stated.
not re-concreted as lime washing as carried out in Hongkong is
valueless as a disiofectant and germicide.
99. The uselessness of having these three sections dealing practically with the same matter is apparent and the late Acting Principal Civil Medical Officer says it was oversight of draughtmanship.
100. The anomaly is remarkable that in sections 111 and 112 the material used shall be approved by the Board, and in section 140, it should be approved by the Building Authority. But as is pointed out in section 82 of this Report, the Building Authority having delegated his anthority to Sanitary Inspectors, he knows little or nothing of it from personal knowledge.
101. One difficulty about lime concrete is the absence of stone lime in sufficient quantity procurable in the Colony to be generally available, and so it has to be made with shall or ooral lime.
102. The component parts of lime concrete used are lime, red earth and granite. Experts vary slightly in their recommendation as to the respective quantities to be used of each of these materials, and also in the matter of laying the same, but from evidence adduced we would recommend the following definite specification should be laid down, subject of course to the Board having the right to approve of any other kind of flooring or materials, which in their opinion may be equally good or better :-
Lime concrete
inches thick
Lime... Red earth
Broken granite to pass one
inch mesh
the whole to be rammed before setting until the lime comes to the surface. This specification is the one required at present for encasing drains under the Drainage Bye-laws.
103. A similar course should be adopted with regard to cement concrete floors if preferred by the owner, which should be four inches thick, substituting cement for lime, but in view of the extra cost entailed we do not recommend its compulsory use.
104. We recommend the consolidation of sections Nos. 111 112, and 140,
Also that the Building Inspector shall gene- rally supervise the laying of the floors.
That a certificate be given that the work has been satisfactorily carried out. 'bat such certificate should be held good as against all but surface repairs for eight years in the case of lime concrete and fifteen years in the case of
cement concrete.
This certificate should bear an endorsement that during the period such certificates are in force the owners shall not be called upon to open up the ground surfaces of their houses but only to repair broken surfaces,
105. By section 140, the internal surface of these walls have to be rendered in cement mortar to a height of not less than 4 fest.
106. From evidence it seems that on account of the action of heat from kitchen fires, general rough usage by Chinese, and the difficulty of making the cement adhere to the walls (old walls especially) to so great a height as four feet, the enforcement of this part of the section is unsatisfactory, and we recommend that the height be limited to 18 inche
107. We consider that the medical staff should have nothing to do with examining and passing the above works, which are eminently questions for a Civil Engineer.
108. A certificate should be granted on completion, which should protect the owner from being o lled upon to do the work a second time.
although a Sanitary Inspector passes such The Medical Officer of Health stated that work when completed, it is not a certificate that the workmanship is good.
109. Compulsory lime washing was first introduced as an anti-plague measure and largely as a result of the panie caused by the virulent outbreak of 1894. Ten years of enforcement of the lime washing regulations have shewn that the lime washing operations as carried out and for the purpose intended are a complete failure.
111. The Medical Officer of Health supported lime washing because as it was apparently the only method of cleansing dark corners and out of the way places, he did not attribute any disinfectant properties to the limewash. Dr. Pearse said:"I do not know what it (lime . washing) was introduced for, but I should not carry it out as a means of destroying plague germs in a bouse; its advantage as plague measure is very small."
an anti-
14
112. Mr. Ough was of opinion that English or stone lime put on hot would do good, and said that the lime used in lime washing operations locally was third grade Sai Kung lime which consisted of the lower and coarser layers of coral and shell lime mixed with sand and partly burned partioles of shell. "The advantage "of lime washing was that there was visible evidence of the brush having been "there; the lime wash had no disinfectant properties."
113. Mr. Lemm expressed similar views. Mr. Perkins thought the number of compulsory might be left to the Medical Officer of Health lime washings might be reduced and that it
Osborne was of opinion that "the so called lime or some high officer to discriminaté, while Mr. washing entailed expenditure with no 14 sponding good, and was valueless except to accentuate the surrounding dirt.”
COTTO-
114. "In the majority of cases the stuff slopped on the walls is so weak in "whitening qualities that in a few days the walls are yellow sgain."
115. Mr. Osborne was also of opinion that compulsory lime washing should be abolished and its place taken by monthly house to bouse cleansing. He cites in support of his contention extensive experiments carried out under his direct supervision. His statement that as the result of his operations amongst a large staff of some thousands of employés, there has only been one case of plague in six years, notwithstanding the fact the disease raged in the neighbourhood, must command attention.
116. The Commission are inclined to the opinion that if proper monthly, bimonthly or even quarterly cleansings were undertaken by the people under the supervision of the Sanitary Board, compulsory lime washing may be found unnecessary and for the reasons stated hereafter, inexpedient. Commission are of opinion that shops and the In any case, the more respectable Chiese houses should not be placed upon the same footing as common lodging houses and opium divans.
117. The lime washing regulations have given rise to corruption on a very large scale, and the hardships and injustice attendant therson have
been considerable.
118. Work in connection with re-concreting and lime washing has got into the hands of a select few, the result of a ring formed amongst certain contractors and inspectors. The result of this has been to raise the price of lime wash- ing from $1.00 and $1 20 to 82.00 and $2.50 per floor. Good work done by contractors outside the ring has been condemned over and over again, whilst bad work done by ring contractors has been passed at once,
119. The usual procedure in such cases would seem to be for the Inspectors to delay inspect ing work done for two or three weeks. By this time the lime wash would probably be soiled again either by dirt or smoke and the contractor would be ordered to do it again. This process would be repeated until finally the contractor would, unless be engaged a ring contractor to finish the job or bribed the and fined. Inspector, be summoned before the Magistrate
120. Apart from the inconvenience to téžiaħta of this delays, the first onät of these lime wash- ing operation aforesaid) in the poorer dlatriofs often amounts to nearly a month's rent, and se they occur twice yearly and form but one of the many recurrent items of expenditure that the landlord is put to under the Health Ordinance, it is not difficult to account for the enormota shrinkage in values of Chinese property, particularly in the poorer distriols. A 110. Although on the question of the efficacy
121. The Government of India do not recom- of lime washing as a means of cleansing theremend lime washing as a plague preventive, and has been considerable diversity of opinion in the line washing the wall of houses does not destroy expert evidence, on the question of its efficacy the rat fleas infesting them. That feds from
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.