Public Matsheds from 1912 to 1918
According to Coates (1983:170), by the 1918 three-day Chinese New Year racing carnival it had become the custom for the entire west side of the Happy Valley racecourse, from the village at the top end to the monument at the Valley entrance, to be lined by a long row of matshed stands. He claims that the Jockey Club was extremely careful to ensure that all matshed structures on its property were properly constructed and safe. With the benefit of hindsight, the Government, as it turned out, was not so careful.
Matshed Letting Conditions from 1912 to 1918
As earlier mentioned, up until the 1911 race meetings, condition No. 6 only provided for the protection of the Golf Club putting greens also situated on Crown land behind sites 10 and 13. However in December 1911 conditions laid down for the adherence of lessees were both modified and increased by the DPW himself. Condition No 6 was re-written:
The tenant of each both site shall protect the turf on such site by placing over the whole area thereof boards at least ½ inch thick.
SCMP (8 March 1918:10)
Two new conditions, No 7 and 8 respectively were added. Condition No 7 demanded proper sanitary conveniences whilst No 8 read as follows:
The tenants of booth sites No 6 - 17 inclusive shall provide a gangway 10 ft. wide at the narrowest portion as indicated on the plan showing sites. Such gangway shall be formed of planks placed close together and raised two feet above the turf and shall be bounded on the western side by a fence not less than six feet high from the ground, formed of close boarding or matting or some other approved material. Such gangway and fence shall be constructed and maintained during the races by the tenants to the satisfaction of the Building authority.
SCMP (8 March 1918:10)
When questioned as to whether Legislative Council approval had been obtained for the amendments to condition No 6, and the new conditions No 7 and 8, the DPW claimed that, as he was the approving authority anyway, he had not bothered with this process. Interestingly, a PWD official later produced documentary evidence at the hearing which proved that Golf Club correspondence with the DPW had only been in respect of the provision of urinals and the erection of a fence to mark the boundary on the Golf Club side. There was nothing in writing that justified the subsequent revision of condition No 6.
As regards the bamboo bracing struts projecting from the rear of the matshed complex onto the greens, photographs produced at the enquiry of the rear of the matsheds as taken during the 1917 meeting apparently confirmed that between sites 9 and 15 inclusive no rear struts were in place. When later questioned about the lack of rear struts, PWD officials were most reluctant to admit that these had either previously caused major damage to the greens or that there had been a deliberate policy to omit them. However A.E. Wright, Executive Engineer of the PWD, in charge of the Building Ordinance Office came close to an admission when cross-examined by counsel for the matshed contractors after being shown a photograph of the rear of the matsheds taken in 1917. When asked as to whether it was not extremely possible that the builder was instructed to omit the struts from the back near the Golf Club he replied:
It is possible, not extremely probable.
SCMP (12 March 1918:10)
Moreover when later asked whether, if the struts had been erected since 1911, they would have injured the green, he replied that only slight damage would have resulted, a remark that was to earn him a rebuke from the Coroner:
Don’t you think you might attribute a little common-sense to myself and the jury?
SCMP (12 March 1918:10)
Later during the enquiry, Mr. Grist, SCMP (23 March 1918:3), a member of the Golf Club Committee recalled that in 1911 the Committee approached the Public Works Department with a view to preserving the greens over which these matsheds were built and that in consequence of that the PWD made certain regulations to preserve the green. The Committee suggested that a causeway be constructed at the back of the sheds. He did not recall any suggestion being made regarding struts however it was suggested that it would be advantageous if the poles were not let into the ground. The construction of a fence was a suggestion of the Golf Club as previously spectators came out of the sheds and walked over the green. Whilst the Committee were never able to preserve all the green, nevertheless the measures were very beneficial.
When asked as to whether the removal of bracing struts and the construction of a fence and a gangway were contrary to the interests and safety of racegoers, Grist replied:
We left it to the PWD to safeguard the interests and safety of the public.
SCMP (22 March 1918:3)
PWD officials also gave evidence as to why the new conditions as regards the requirement for planking and construction of fences and gangways had been necessary. The Coroner concluded that it was reasonable to assume that the changes had been made in order to protect a much larger area of the Golf Club’s greens, located at the rear of the matsheds. He added that such action had clearly been initiated by the DPW himself following complaints by the Golf Club regarding damage to the turf caused by public racegoers walking about behind the matsheds resultant from wet weather conditions at the 1911 meeting and people urinating in the vicinity. The Coroner also concluded that the matshed contractor had omitted the rear bracing struts from the matsheds from the 1912 meeting onwards at the behest of the PWD.
Matshed Construction from 1912 to 1918
As earlier mentioned, no control was exercised by either the Government overseer or by the matshed contractor as regards the number of storeys built. However up and including the 1912 annual meeting the matshed complex had not risen above two storeys and a basement area. Prior to the 1913 race meeting the matshed contractor was instructed by the permit holder of matshed site No 8 to add one extra storey to his site. A circa 1914 photograph [5-4] of the matsheds, clearly shows this three storey stand just to the left of the Colonial stand. As at the 1917 meeting, three of the 19 sites had been constructed to three storeys whilst by 1918 this had risen to four. Moreover by the 1918 meeting, sites 10 and 11 had increased in height by an additional four feet, when compared with the 1917 meeting; this modification having been carried out by the contractor at the behest of the new permit holders. A photograph [5-5] taken of the matsheds in 1918 very shortly before the disaster, clearly illustrates these structural changes. In the enquiry Mr Kwok Kun, a partner and the foreman of the Sze Hop Construction Company that had built the matsheds confirmed, SCMP (12 March 1918:10), that the lessees had given him instructions as to the height, number of storeys, and entrance/exit requirements of their respective stands. Clearly the modifications from 1913 onwards not only created an uneven roof but also uneven floors, both factors creating structural weakness. Comments by the DPW at the enquiry tended to confirm this:
In my opinion the sheds of 1914 being more uniform in height were more stable than those of the present year. The difference in the levels of the floors means loss of strength. I would not go so far as to condemn the sheds for the variation in floor levels. I don’t think that variation necessarily caused the collapse. It would contribute.
SCMP (29 March 1918:6)
Matshed Supervision from 1912 to 1918
When questioned at the enquiry, Inspector Sara, the PWD area overseer, who had carried out annual inspections since the 1913 meeting, claimed that matshed construction in 1918 was similar to previous years. To his knowledge there had been no changes to individual matshed site heights during his six years of inspection. He thought the stability of matsheds were quite sound, adding that the matshed contractors knew as much about matsheds as anyone. As to the number of people to be accommodated, he claimed never to have been given guidance or instruction. In his opinion it was not his duty to consider how many persons the matsheds would accommodate. He had inspected them with the assumption that they would be full. However under cross questioning as to how many people would fill them he admitted that he did not even know what area each site occupied. He was also unable to comment as to what steps he had taken to ascertain the strain a matshed could take, replying that his instructions were only to give them careful supervision. Having done so he had not seen the need for any modification or strengthening work. The jury noted that Inspector Sara was not in any way an expert in this form of matshed construction, concluding that without guidelines and a plan from which to base his examination, his inspection was worthless.
Circa 1914 Partial Matshed Collapse
During the first day of the 1914 race meeting Mr. Blake, SCMP (13 March 1918:10), one of three joint lessees of the Unity stand, which occupied sites 4,5 & 6 of the matshed complex, claimed to have witnessed a partial collapse of the top floor of the stand occupying site 8, the only three storey stand. Shortly after the second race that day, some of the upright bamboo supports shifted. As a result, a good degree of panic ensued. He subsequently lodged a complaint with Mr. Hough, Clerk of the Course who told him that he had nothing to do with the matsheds and advised him to complain to the Governor. Blake did not however do so. Nevertheless he continued to harbour serious misgivings with regard to the structural safety of three storey stands.
Matshed Cooking Arrangements
Cooked foods had always been available for purchase from hawkers sited either in the infield area of the track or in front of the matshed complex. Cooking arrangements inside the matshed complex itself did not however commence until sometime between 1910 and 1914. Thereafter many of the basement floors of the stands had charcoal braziers for cooking or for boiling water. Whilst the matshed contractor admitted to being well aware of this arrangement, nevertheless PWD officials from their Director downwards, claimed total ignorance of this throughout the enquiry. In particular Inspector Sara, SCMP (9 March 1918:10), stated that there had been no requirement placed on him to examine the complex either during or between each day of occupation. He had therefore been unaware that cooking had taken place in the matshed complex. When asked for his view at the enquiry on such arrangements, he commented that it was rather unsafe to do so.
Racecourse Water Supply and Fire Fighting Arrangements
On 14 February 1914, two days before the commencement of the 1914 races, Assistant Superintendent of Police T.H. King, SCMP (29 March 1918:6), and a party from the Fire Brigade tested the fire hydrants, one being situated immediately behind the Golf Club pavilion on eastern side (right side) of the public matsheds and the other at the entrance to the racecourse. Without any fire hose attached, the water pressure from the three inch supply main laid in 1897 was registered at below 60 lbs. With a hose attached there was a further major drop in pressure. It was therefore concluded that there was insufficient water pressure to cope with any outbreak of fire in the matsheds. That same morning the PWD was informed of this by letter and requested to provide for a minimum of 100 lbs. pressure on that main, this being measured with one delivery point open. A reply forthcoming during the race meeting stated that the pressure as earlier measured by the Fire Brigade was deemed normal and that there were no facilities for increasing it. Despite this, no fire precautions were taken by the Fire Brigade at the race meeting that year or in successive years up to and including the 1918 meeting. In fact as was admitted by the Hon. Mr.C. Mc I Messer Captain Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of the Fire Brigade at the enquiry, the overall question of fire precautions at the matsheds had never been properly considered:
No precautions were taken against fire as there were no regulations requiring such.......The question of fire precautions had not been considered.
SCMP (25 March 1918:3)
Furthermore no instructions were ever given to any of the matshed lessees as to appropriate measures to combat fire.
Complacency and Lack of Inter-Departmental Co-ordination
Inter-departmental liaison had not in any way improved over the years up until 1918. If anything the prevailing level of complacency had deteriorated even further. For example, when requested by the Coroner to give an opinion as to the cause of the collapse and fire, Chatham commented:
It appears to me that as the structures had been erected year after year for so many years without any accident of any description occurring in connection with them and they had stood the test of the first days races, and also on the second day they had stood the test of the most prominent race of the day, I cannot understand why the collapse should have occurred unless something had been done to weaken some parts of the shed.
SCMP (9 March 1918:10)
Chatham later admitted that his department had made no request to Messer, for any special fire precautions to be taken during the race meeting nor had any plans of the matsheds been submitted to them. When asked as to whether this would have been the proper thing to do, Chatham replied:
He (Messer) does not pretend to be ignorant of the existence of these matsheds.
SCMP (29 March 1918:6)
Moreover when asked as to whether, in light of the disaster, plans should have been submitted to the Fire Brigade, Chatham commented:
....it would have been a purely formal matter, because no plans have been submitted (by the contractor) for 23 years.
SCMP (29 March 1918:6)
Later, when advised that Messer had earlier given evidence to the effect that he would probably have made recommendations as regards the need for adequate exits in some of the matshed sites if only the matter had been referred to him by the PWD, he replied:
there were no plans of the sheds.... The sheds have been put up for 23 years and I have never heard a murmur about the exits.
SCMP (29 March 1918:6)
However despite all Chatham’s failings, perhaps the most blatant admission of complacency at the Inquest was that from Messer himself:
I walked along the road on the Monday of the Races (25 February 1918) and saw the crowds going into the sheds. The idea struck me that if a fire happened the exits would be insufficient to cope with a panic.
SCMP (27 March 1918:11)
On questioning, Messer admitted that despite harbouring such safety concerns, he had not subsequently initiated any additional precautionary measures. When asked by the Coroner as whether, as head of the Police Department and having noticed that the exits were insufficient for dealing with panic, he should have prevented people going in, he replied:
It was one of those things that had been going on from time immemorial and I should have thought a lot before trying to prevent people going in.
SCMP (27 March 1918:11)
Moreover when later pressed as to whether the actual risk was still not sufficient for him to interfere he replied:
No, on account of the old established custom.
SCMP (27 March 1918:11)
It is interesting to contrast Messer’s opinions above with those given by him below the previous day:
If I had been consulted in advance with regard to proper fire precautions for the racecourse matsheds this year I expect I should have condemned the sheds, the three storied ones especially, on account of insufficient exits I might possibly have insisted on the subdivision of the matsheds, to give spaces so as to prevent fire from spreading. I should have known from the start that the water supply was insufficient, and I should have contended myself with the provision of buckets of water, possibly patent fire extinguishers and sufficient exits.
SCMP (26 March 1918:11)
References:
- 5-4: Taken either at the 1913 or 1914 race meeting. The first three storey matshed site can clearly be seen to the left of the Colonial Club site. Note the series of bamboo struts coming out at right angles from the front of the matshed complex. Obtained from Honeychurch Antiques, Hollywood Road, Hong Kong.
- 5-5: Taken in 1918, shortly before the collapse and subsequent fire. Note the uneven effect that the proliferation of three storey sites, now four in number, has on the matshed complex roof outline. Obtained from The Public Records Office, Kew-ref CO 129/447 folio 478.