查看完整版本: MORRISON, HEDDA照片中的彩虹鸷,啟德及調景嶺的人與事

回復 300# 的帖子

Thank you for the detailed and expert information on finding the lots from the existing government departments.  

Attached is the sale of land for Rennie's mills in early 1905.  There are some interesting points which require your expert explanation:
1. Why there are different types of lots on the list ? Why these land not started with NKIL as they were in the new kowloon boundary since 1899 ?

2. The place name "Cheung Kwan O" has been in use  rather than "Junk Bay".  People always claimed that "Junk Bay" is the only English name during this time but this proves wrong.

3. There is a detailed measurement of the 4 directions. This is quite different from other land auction notices.

4. Do you think that the money for buying these lands is rather cheap as they are sold in one lot for 75 years and is renewable for another 75 years ?

5. The condition of sale is rather quite detailed and this is also quite a different practice from other land auction notices.

[[i] 本帖最後由 kintsun 於 2009-6-25 03:36 編輯 [/i]]

Thanks, Brother Kintsun. This is one of the very first New Territories public auctions (doesn't look like the later "restricted" public auction and I must presume that it is a true public auction. Due to its pre-mature nature, I also cast doubts as to its legality - especially to the terms of the sale. The normal lease in the NT is 99 years from 1 July 1898 less the last 3 days and that aligns with the 99 years NT lease unilaterally recognised by the British. That being the case, the 75 + 75 years lease (common in Kowloon area south of Boundary Street only) extend beyond 1997 and the British Government has no legal authority to grant such lease. So whether the auction has actually taken place is something of interest and worths further investigation.
1. Why there are different types of lots on the list ? Why these land not started with NKIL as they were in the new kowloon boundary since 1899 ?
(My view: The different types of lots covers a variety of nature of subdivided parcels of land in the area. Marine lot is on the sea, or areas that needs to be reclaimed; Farm lot refers to "agricultural land" where no buildings can be allowed, while Inland lot fall on land formed or to be formed by excavation, and I noticed that marine access is granted to one of these inland lots. I have doubts (to be clarified under Sch 5 of Cap. 1) whether these lots fall within the boundaries of "New Kowloon" or "New Territories", but it doesn't really affect the term (99 years, or more accurately 75 + 24 years). In my view, they should be part of NT, where special indiginous rights under the N. T. Ordinance exists.)

2. The place name "Cheung Kwan O" has been in use  rather than "Junk Bay".  People always claimed that "Junk Bay" is the only English name during this time but this proves wrong. (My view: You are absolutely right - misunderstandings by some people)

3. There is a detailed measurement of the 4 directions. This is quite different from other land auction notices. (My view: This is not uncommon and follows the practice of other earlier HK Island / Kowloon auctions. The dimensions were roughly taken from the Sales Plan. In later sales, the detaled dimensions were replaced for simplicity sake as " refer to the plan deposited at District Office, South)

4. Do you think that the money for buying these lands is rather cheap as they are sold in one lot for 75 years and is renewable for another 75 years ? (My view: Yes, it is much lower than the rule in setting an upset price at that tiime -1 cent per square foot for building land and 0.25-0.75 cents per square foot of agricultural land. I'm not sure what led to such low upset price. It could be requirements to form the land, to construct public facilities, or simply, the practice was not established at that time and the sale was merely a test case.)

5. The condition of sale is rather quite detailed and this is also quite a different practice from other land auction notices. (Sorry that I cannot agree that the conditions were complicated. It is regarded as "simple" as by 1905 a standard set of sales conditions were yet to be worked out by Government. For these New Grant lots, Government published in the Gazette from time to time new / revised conditions that governs the sale of land. The more comprehensive G.N. 365 of 1906 was then yet to be published.)

I welcome further discussions on the origin of these lots. Nevertheless, we should try to refocus on Rennie's NKIL 31 - this has also aroused my interest as well.

Re : 302  

[size=4][i]Rennie's NKIL 31 - this has also aroused my interest as well.[/i][/size]
[i][size=4][/size][/i]
:lol 系啦, 咁就拜托快d去了解個K士,唔該晒:wave: :wave:

[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/tws12414/herbs/2144546608_ff3dcff8c3_b_1965.jpg[/IMG][color=DarkRed][size=4]

[color=DarkRed]返番1965年的啟德游樂場元宵花燈雅集。
[color=DarkRed]該啟事乃近代書法篆刻宗師羅叔重先生所製。題字是羅公獨創的黑老虎，啟事亦為羅公所擬，文釆斐然，非庸手可比。惜羅公製此後，於同年下世。[/color]
[/color][/size][/color]

Lease hold and free hold

As being a chartered surveyor (MRICS or ARICS) , I think you should know the English Land Lease System and Deed System.

Only private land would have been awarded with either lease hold or free hold. Only one private property in Hong Kong was awarded as free hold in one dollar term. Do you know where it is?

Other government properties and facilities (castle) will have no period limitation as it was exempted from laws (previous namely Exemption Ordinance).

If the so called "castle" had the lease and land mark, it will not be a castle logically. No private castle was allowed in Hong Kong Colony according to previous letter of patent.

[[i] 本帖最後由 竹園BB 於 2009-6-26 02:49 編輯 [/i]]

回復 302# 的帖子

連尼 / 倫尼 / 雷尼 / 蘭尼 磨坊一些誤傳的辨識

Hi, Brother Dorothytiffany, quite impressed with the expert knowledge you displayed in explaining the questions I raised.  They help me a lot in understanding and uncovering the misty pictures of the Mau Wu castle-like structure and the story of the Rennie's Mills.  Many misunderstandings of the said premises could be clarified:

1. The year the Rennie's Mills came into existence and operated was at the end of 1906.  Many people claimed that it was in 1905 or even in 1904.
The evidence:
January 1905  --  the 7 lots for Rennie's mills put up for auction (mentioned in earlier posts)
November 1905  -- another farm lease lot no 2 adjacent to lot no 1 was put up for auction

[attach]1052881[/attach]

The nature of such auction sale was perhaps as Brother Dorothytiffany said a "premature" one so it had contradicted with the 1899 treaty with the term of 99 years lease of NT to Britain.  The sale of 7 lots including different types of usage also implied that these lands were tailor made for some body who would invest on a big business good for the territory.  It is no wonder Brother Dorothytiffany doubted that the auction has really taken place or not.

The Nathan report 1905 to the Lord had the clues for this tailor-made arrangement.  It was said that the development of a flour mill in Junk Bay would help the prosperity of HK in solving the bad effects brought by the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). HK was losing the benefits of entrepot trade.   Therefore the upset price for these lands was cheap as pointed by Brother Dorothytiffany's calculation.  

[attach]1052882[/attach]

With high aspiration for this new industry in Hong Kong, Nathan always paid attention to its completion.  The 1906 report again revealed the near completion of the flour mills by the end of 1906.  

[attach]1052883[/attach]

This was reiternated in the Public Works Department report in 1906 that the farm land lease lot was connected with the Rennie's mills. Its purpose was for rearing pigs to consume the millfeed - endproducts of flouring milling.

[attach]1052884[/attach]

2. Rennie's Mills was demolished in 1934 rather than at a later date after the 2nd World War.  It was always  rumoured that the mills was used as a British defence point against the Japanese during WWII.  And the Japanese after occupying it during WWII also used it as  a defence post too.  This is rather ridiculous.  If the structure of the mills was demolished, it would become a flat land and nothing left for any defence purpose!  The following scraps from the HK Gazette prove it:

Buying the Rennie's mills back first in 1925:

[attach]1052885[/attach]
Demolishing it in 1934:
[attach]1052886[/attach]

Thank you  Brother Dorothytiffany in helping me to uncover the mysteries and clarifying some misunderstandings around the Tiu Keng Leng historical remains.  Also thanks due to Brother Ho and Brother Micheung for arousing my interest in the history of Tiu Keng Leng.  The mystery of NKIL no. 31 should be dealt with and would be my focus of research.  

Bother 竹園BB, thanks for your knowledge in both civil engineering and land surveying.  The Mau Wu structure should not be understood as a real castle.  It was in fact just a castle-like structure.  Its purpose has been disucssed in earlier posts.

[[i] 本帖最後由 kintsun 於 2009-6-26 11:45 編輯 [/i]]

[quote]原帖由 [i]kintsun[/i] 於 2009-6-26 05:50 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=7475877&ptid=250483][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
連尼 / 倫尼 / 雷尼 / 蘭尼 磨坊一些誤傳的辨識

Hi, Brother Dorothytiffany, quite impressed with the expert knowledge you displayed in explaining the questions I raised.  They help me a lot in underst ... [/quote]


[b][color=blue]We have had quite a fruitful 'chat' here about the history of Rennies' Mill, Junk Bay and the 'castle' with all the valuable input from the experts like Dorothytiffany, 竹園  BB .....  But I am just curious, Brother Kintsun, ......  that if there are any special reasons, personal or sentimental, that you want to dig into the details of the historical background of this place ?[/color][/b]   :wondering:   :oh:

回復 307# 的帖子

Hi, Brother Tiutiu111, thanks for reading  the chat between us.  The forces behind me for digging into the stories of these places are:

1. Attracting more people to understand the correct history of these historical spots seems a  mission for me.  I don't like the misunderstandings around these spots spread everyday.

2. The Mau Wu castle-like structure and the story of Rennie's Mills are interesting to me as they can be touched and seen.  There are still many historical documents concerning Alfred Herbert Rennie that we can explore today.  The story is just 100 years away.  We can feel and touch it!

3. It is a wonderful feeling when  the misty picture of these places and people was unveiled in front of you.  It seems that Alfred Herbert Rennie and his fellow engineers and workers standing in front of you and looking at you,

[[i] 本帖最後由 kintsun 於 2009-6-27 02:36 編輯 [/i]]

RE ：308  KINTSUN

1. 對, 人云亦云最要不得.
2. TOUCH AND SEEN 尋幽探勝而矣,而
3. 那代入感方迷人。

另, 地皮批出過程及原由,遮打因素必要顧及。

[size=5]吊頸嶺的故事
[/size]凄酸的華工-----北太�姜攓ORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD------麵粉大戰
------反排華,罷買行動------投海的蘭尼RENNIE---------LETTER B問題----------今日將軍澳.

淒酸的華工(2)

轉貼星島日報一篇報導

修建加太鐵路華工血淚史電影 《鐵路》約大獨家首映籌款
2009-06-16
(本報記者)第 一部描寫鐵路華工修建加拿大太平洋鐵路血淚史的電影《鐵路》，昨日在約克大學進行全加獨家首映，兼為「紀念加拿大鐵路華工基金會」籌款，同時也作為慶祝哈珀總理為人頭稅及排華法案作出歷史性道歉的三周年紀念。 多倫多市長苗大偉、中國駐多倫多總領館總領事朱桃英等親自出席了首映式，聯邦多元文化和移民部長康尼（Jason Kenney）也派助手出席，並帶來賀信。 苗大偉在講話中強調，在多倫多這樣一個多元的城市，該影片讓人們記住鐵路華工對加拿大的貢獻，及不忘他們為此遭受的苦難。同時，該片作為中、加合拍的第一部影片，更有著特殊的意義，它讓我們的故事不僅是講給我們自己聽，而是講給全世界。紀念聯邦為人頭稅道歉3周年 康尼在賀信中，代表加拿大政府充份肯定了華人對加拿大社會和多元文化的貢獻，同時指出在6月22日，將迎來平反人頭稅和哈珀總理為人頭稅及排華法案作出歷史性道歉的三周年紀念，這部影片也提醒人們，過去那段黑暗的歷史，將永遠不許重演。 「紀念加拿大鐵路華工基金會」主席，91歲的盤佔元老先生，作為鐵路華工的後代(其祖父為鐵路華工)，及人頭稅受害人，對電影的上映感到十分欣慰。他也代表基金會向哈珀和康尼轉贈了影片的DVD。 電影《鐵路》又叫《金山》，描述了一個多世紀以前華人遠渡重洋來加拿大興建鐵路這段飽含血淚的歷史。 為了修建橫貫加拿大東西的鐵路，一萬七千名華工中有[size=4][color=red][b]四千多人喪生[/b][/color][/size]，也就是說每哩太平洋鐵路的修建，要有4名華工付出生命。今日加拿大人可以和諧共處，有完整的領土，也應歸功於當年華工以這一條橫貫東西的鐵路所做出的血淚貢獻。 但1885年鐵路建成後，加拿大政府卻開始向留下來定居的華工及家屬徵收很重的「人頭稅」，隨後為阻止華人移民加拿大又實施了歧視性的「排華法案」，直到1923年才廢除。 對於歷史上並不光彩的這一頁，3年前總理哈珀代表加拿大政府作出了正式道歉和賠償。而民間也在通過各種方式教育更多人了解這段歷史。 《鐵路》就是第一部描寫這段歷史的電影。製片人泰特女士說過程中曾遇到很多困難，但這段歷史鼓舞著她去完成影片。她還透露，加拿大廣播公司已經預定在今年8月份，分兩個星期天連續放映本片。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

四千多華工付出生命的加拿大太平洋�姜孅ANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY( CP)只是1881-1885年從OTTAWA VALLEY至GEORGIAN BAY一段，
我第一次乘CP穿越東西兩岸, 欣賞加拿大瑰麗山河時,當想起這段歷史,�姜穭W的枕木,洒遍華工的血及屍骨,便淚盈於眶。整個北,中,南美洲��
路系�s,華工因此而長埋異域數以萬計,穿越洛磯,秘魯高原....�姜纁ヰ熊L名墳墓,他們的父母妻兒至死亦不知親人何往. 唉！
工

回復 308# 的帖子

Thank you Brother Kintsun for enlightening me. Yes, totally agreed. This is the way to treat history, and in fact, to treat everything in life. We don't want to be 「差不多先生」。 :reading:
Thank you again.  :bow:

[quote]原帖由 [i]老何[/i] 於 2009-6-26 19:50 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=7481792&ptid=250483][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
吊頸嶺的故事
凄酸的華工-----北太�姜攓ORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD------麵粉大戰
------反排華,罷買行動------投海的蘭尼RENNIE---------LETTER B問題----------今日將軍澳.

淒酸的華工(2)

轉貼星島日報一篇 ... [/quote]

[b][size=4]苦難的中國人 !  只希望我們的政府也對自己的人民能愛護一點, 關心一點, 是萬幸矣 ![/size][/b]

回復 309# 的帖子

老何的片言隻語便道出事件背後的道理,這種歸納概括的技巧沒法速成沒得教授,正所謂薑越老越辣也!老何所言正是小弟對調景嶺這獨特地方尋根問底背後的精神.

Tiutiu111, thanks for your views.

[quote]原帖由 [i]dorothytiffany[/i] 於 2009-6-25 08:03 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=7464830&ptid=250483][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
2. The place name "Cheung Kwan O" has been in use  rather than "Junk Bay".  People always claimed that "Junk Bay" is the only English name during this time but this proves wrong. (My view: You are absolutely right - misunderstandings by some people)
[/quote]
I have further checked some prime source of "Cheung Kwan O" and "Junk Bay", including published names of "recognised villages" (villages that were in existence in 1898 and were entitled to grant of Small House and burial rights, etc) as well as early maps. I can now made some supplements:
1. "Tseung Kwan O"  is the name of a recognised village and its name appears in various documents and maps;
2. The area of water near Tseung Kwan O has been named as "Chung Kwan O" (earliest maps), "Tseung Kwan O", "Junk Bay", or "Tseung Kwan O(Junk Bay)".  Therefore, the misunderstanding that the bay was originally known as "Junk Bay" cannot stand.

[quote]原帖由 [i]dorothytiffany[/i] 於 2009-6-25 08:03 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=7464830&ptid=250483][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]Thanks, Brother Kintsun. This is one of the very first New Territories public auctions (doesn't look like the later "restricted" public auction and I must presume that it is a true public auction. Due ... [/quote]
are you an estate surveyor ? So professional

回復 314# 的帖子

Thanks again for these supplements.

Therefore, there were many English names long existing in the past for the present Tseung Kwan O.  They were:
1. Chung Kwan O
2. Cheung Kwan O
3. Tseung Kwan O
4. Tseung Kwan O (Junk Bay)
5. Junk Bay

For Chinese name, just one - 將軍澳.

[img=1232,467]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Northern_Pacific_Railroad_map_circa_1900.jpg[/img]

[size=5]吊頸嶺的故事
[/size]凄酸的華工-----北太�姜攓ORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD------麵粉大戰
------反排華,罷買行動------投海的蘭尼RENNIE---------LETTER B問題----------今日將軍澳.

北太�撓攓ORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY(NP)

北太�撓�-1864年,總�s林肯簽署國會特許法案,以19萬平方公里土地(香港土地面積1104平方公里)交換建造從大湖區GREAT LAKES至大西瓦圖區
PUGET SOUND跨越9個州份,三大河流域(紅河RED RIVER,密蘇里河MISSOURI RIVER及哥侖比亞河COLUMBIA RIVER)的�姜籊t�s以便開發北部
大平原NORTHERN PLAIN. 其目的主要是安置移民及從該區生產之穀物供應東岸。老何對北太�姜籅漲L象始於少時,是在九龍城龍城戲院公餘場,
以二毛前座看了老牌牛仔尊榮JOHN WAYNE及憂鬱靚仔孟甘穆利奇里夫MONTGOMERY CLIFT主演的那套牛仔片「大戰紅河RED RIVER」開始,
因故事背景就是北太�撓糮堻y期。(不知呀�鬺A有冇一齊排隊買飛)另一就是牛仔歌RED RIVER VALLEY。
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be-QiqPhGak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be-QiqPhGak[/url]
北太�撓�,華工因工傷亡最多的地方,主要是位於ROCKY MOUNTAIN的BOZEMAN TUNNEL及CASCADE MOUNTAIN 的STAMPEDE TUNNEL。承包商以最低價,最快速度28月依合約完工,因香港的賣豬仔商人供應無限量的四邑人, 那是另一故事了,總之一個字 「 慘」。因北太�撓籅獐s泛宣傳,移民激增,蒙坦拿MONTANA華盛頓WASHINGTON
,南、北達科他於1889年設州。北太�撓籉�1864起至1902止,期間�撓穭j亨惡鬥不停,最後掌握在北方証�術ORTHERN SECURITIES的J.P.MORGAN 摩根及ROCKEFELLA洛克非勒手中。1904年反托勒斯法ANTI-TRUST ACT通過, 依法解體。北太�撓籈馱u, 北部大平原之穀物到達西岸,麵粉大王從而出現, 吊頸嶺一幕揭開。

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-6-28 19:50 編輯 [/i]]

回復 318# 的帖子

老何你怎樣有這麼多的故仔,居然支節清晰,如在眼前,又能與麵粉大王及吊頸嶺的故事掛勾,犀利!麵粉大王是否Theodore B. Wilcox? 期待.

KINTSUN, 正是。戰前港府批地,故事成籮咁多,GRANT就GRANT,戰後一樣, 60s後好d, 跟住就更技考,誰知今天,
發水又發水,吹咩。麵粉廠塊地,遮打及摩地有份, 可能你唔知,佢地�峟茼韭N吼住新界,最好例子就系在馬鞍山 開
�孩q, 你繼續掘落去, 就掘度好多��, 不過工餘先做,唔好九更都未�唌C下面摩地張相, 第一次上網。

[size=5]吊頸嶺的故事
[/size]凄酸的華工-----北太�姜攓ORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD------麵粉大戰
------反排華,罷買行動------投海的蘭尼RENNIE---------LETTER B問題----------今日將軍澳.

麵粉大戰

先睇D關於1906及1907年香港入口貨物情�G和蘭尼間麵粉廠介紹, 另外比較清楚D�麍菕C其它明續。

其實茅湖廢堡, 會唔會係瞭望鯉魚門水道及觀察將軍澳內灣而建? 網上找到一些石砌lookout, 大少及外型跟相中石砌小屋有點相似.

[url]http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1048367368034606766PwfHUi[/url]

[quote]原帖由 [i]竹園BB[/i] 於 2009-6-26 02:47 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=7475178&ptid=250483][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
As being a chartered surveyor (MRICS or ARICS) , I think you should know the English Land Lease Lease hold and free holdAs being a chartered surveyor (MRICS or ARICS) , I think you should know the English Land Lease System and Deed System.

Only private land would have been awarded with either lease hold or free hold. Only one private property in Hong Kong was awarded as free hold in one dollar term. Do you know where it is?

Other government properties and facilities (castle) will have no period limitation as it was exempted from laws (previous namely Exemption Ordinance).

If the so called "castle" had the lease and land mark, it will not be a castle logically. No private castle was allowed in Hong Kong Colony according to previous letter of patent.

... [/quote]

Brother [i]竹園BB[/i] : The land system in the New Territories (including New Kowloon) is much more complicated than the HK Island and Kowloon. I can recommend some books / papers for you to read if you are interested.

Talking about freehold properties in Hong Kong, the only freehold church property had its own unique background, belonging to the trustee of Church of England which was very powerful in Endgand at that time. As a matter of fact, although some earlier influential merchants tried to force the Government to sell properties in auctions as freehold, their request was not enetertained. Nevertheless, as a sort of compromise, some early properties granted with a term of 999 years are virtually freehold properties.

You may also be interested to explore other forms of military land holdings in Hong Kong, including Ministry of Defence (MOD) lots, grant by ordinances, etc. These are interesting topics for research but are outside the scope of the present discussions.

回復 321# 的帖子

老何這篇英文介紹,非常珍貴,亦是小弟渴望搜尋的.資料詳細介紹連尼廠房設施,動力,水源,員工宿舍,工作時間等,填補及引證這方面的空白.

先前小弟所貼的數篇所述與老何這篇資料可互為補充,各種情况互相配合,沒有誤傳,是所願也。

PAPAYAROOT 君的石建嘹望哨站,是否在香港? 所言茅湖古堡式建築物是否作為軍事嘹望哨站,這點可作以下分析:
1.若古堡建築是與連尼麵粉廠同一期間落成(1906-07),極可能不是作軍事用途,前篇已有討論。
2.古堡建築是否清末的建設?從建築風格看是否定的,文獻上亦沒有提及.
3. 作為嘹望哨站,則這個位置又並不是最好,因為是位於將軍澳內灣,看不通整個鯉鱼門,旁邊的魔鬼山設哨站或炮台更好吧!

老何貼文中提及員工的宿舍位於山腰的bungalows,從相中看外觀及環境不錯,更可旁證其對上不遠的茅湖古堡式建築物是其附設的小教堂吧!

KINTSUN,

因下午北上, WILCOX個古仔暫停。茅湖殘壁, 可從另一思路往尋, RENNIE乃加拿大人,於UOFT畢業,
一查便知其出生地,出生地的建築風格,可能就是殘壁格調原貌,各國洋人來港發積後,多於半山建具祖家風情的住所,
現時港島還有二三間尚存, 但上世紀初,多得很.長洲,大嶼山都有.

回復 325# 的帖子

Thanks for the hints to trace the mysteries of the Mau Wu castle-like structure.  Best wishes to your trip.

[size=5]吊頸嶺的故事
[/size][size=4]凄酸的華工-----北太�姜攓ORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD------麵粉大戰
------反排華,罷買行動------投海的蘭尼RENNIE---------LETTER B問題----------今日將軍澳.

麵粉大戰(2)[/size]
[size=4][/size]


[size=4]1888年5月3日,STAMPEDE TUNNEL鑿通,當時隧道內有一千八百多華工在內.5月27日,列車向太平洋,[/size]
[size=4]大西瓦圖區進發。
北部平原�祖奐蔆膜ㄤ揪F來,從此改變了加州農業生態, 加州穀物中心SANTA CLARA VALLEY的農商投降,
因而加州華工多了一�蟡芵�, [size=5][i]種金山橙[/i][/size]。[/size]
[size=4]在麵粉大王THEODORE BURNEY WILCOX旗下PORTLAND FLOUR未大量地於亞洲傾銷前,
香港麵粉市場又是怎樣的一種情�G呢？  [/size]
[size=4]約140年前, 在中環不打街7號某層, 約現時中環地�垢矮出口,有一間公司名士巴利SPERRY,在賣美國貨,
其中一樣是麵粉, 士巴利的大老闆是在加州的H.DAVIS, 1892年他收購了一間公司,名CENTRAL MILLING, [/size]
[size=4]而CENTRAL MILLING在STAMPADE隧道通車之前即1887年收購了一間公司,是什麼人能趕在通車前1888年[/size]
[size=4]將自己[/size][size=4]的麵粉廠售與他人, 未卜先知麵粉生意將危機四伏 ！誰 ？[/size]
[size=4]這家族的大號是[color=black]MOODY[/color]. [/size]
[size=4]可憐的蘭尼. 真不知你是否高估自己了。[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=3]P.S.明早才北上[/size]

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-7-2 23:26 編輯 [/i]]

[size=4]麵粉大王(3)[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4]1873年的金融恐慌,隨後各行業苦苦掙扎,大魚食細魚現象,遍佈全球. 什�洶偵礞j王, 此起彼落. [/size]
[size=4]麵粉大王WILCOX是其中之一.
1882年一銀行THE LADD AND TILTON無法將4間查封回來的麵粉廠脫手,原是銀行職員的WILCOX受命接管;[/size]
[size=4]直至有買家出現.兩年後,對面粉廠一無認識的WILCOX, 將這4間由他全權獨立經營的麵粉廠,起死回生,而身份亦改變. [/size]
[size=4]1884年銀行又買一間(Albina Mill)交與[/size][size=4]WILOX及組成PORTLAND FLOUIRING MILLS CO.WILCOX正式辭去銀行職務,[/size]
[size=4]任此公司的總經理, 主席由LADD�恭�.
現今世界, 並無乜乜大王,但事實上有一個, 它從收集,貯存,生產,銷售每一環節皆能發揮影嚮力, [/size]
[size=4]你能說它不是大王嗎！誰？De Bxxx 是也。[/size]
[size=4]而WILCOX亦走同一模式, 趕盡殺絕[/size]。
[size=4]預先介紹一公司,RENNIE之死,可能與它什有關連 ：廣怡英KWONG HEE YING[/size]

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-7-2 23:56 編輯 [/i]]

[size=5]位於海傍124號的華人出入口商(金山庄)廣怡英[/size]

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-7-4 12:37 編輯 [/i]]

回復 329# 的帖子

老何,回來了,古仔越來越曲折離奇,西方一件事的發生,事事相扣,其後果影响深遠,遠及至東方不見经傳的茅湖山下!世事往往有其因緣脈絡,連尼的故事為一明證.

老何,衷心佩服你的博學多才,能挖出這麼多的宝貴資料,那麽深入融滙貫通,可以說老何就是今天所謂通識科要培養的人辦了!是不是要在學校教呢? 沒有如老何般博学,以身作則,能勝任的懂得教的有幾人? 單靠上一些所謂課程便可做通識科教師,這就是教育局教育官僚的所謂專業做法!

[size=5]多謝kintsun嘉許, 多多益善。[/size]:handshake :handshake :handshake :lol :lol :lol

[size=5]KINTSUN[/size]

[size=5][color=green][i]世事往往有其因緣脈絡[/i][/color][/size]
[i][size=5][/size][/i]
[i][size=5]印尼, 第二代亞洲四小龍之一, 其經濟基礎實賴被賣豬仔至印尼的克苦華人所建立。[/size][/i]
[size=5][i]賣豬仔等同黑奴貿易,在亞洲, 開先河者荷蘭人也。荷蘭人以夏門為基地,[/i][/size]
[size=5][i]17世紀以來,福建華人即被販運至印尼各地,千島之國得以開[/i][/size][size=5][i]發,三百年來的辛酸, [/i][/size]
[size=5][i]亦造就方今華人血�s的經濟實權階級, 其次之又次者如北角一街道被名為春秧街,[/i][/size]
[size=5][i]即為例也。[/i][/size][size=5][i]下午往春秧街購福建食物配料有感。[/i][/size]

回復 332# 的帖子

春秧街又有什麼古仔?願聞其詳。麵粉大王的故事亦請老何快D講喇!:bow:

[size=5]吊頸嶺的故事
[/size][size=4]凄酸的華工-----北太�姜攓ORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD------麵粉大戰
------反排華,罷買行動------投海的蘭尼RENNIE---------LETTER B問題----------今日將軍澳.

麵粉大戰(4)[/size]


[size=4]PORTLAND FLOURING  MILLS COMPANY(PFMC)自成立至1900年,通過自建,吞併,收購等手段,已擁有15間生產廠,
日產量11,000包麵粉([color=red][size=3][i]RENNIE一間廠,日產8000包,缺乏彈性,冇位走,[color=red]廠長必頭大如斗[/color][/i][/size][/color])。壟斷四環節,WILCOX從未停止。
自北太�撓臛q車以來,穀物便是買方市場,WILCOX要維持買家市場,有必要建立龐大的貯存系�s,只要有足夠一年生產
的穀物存貨,穀物生產商便無議價能力。1898年,轟動一時的百萬元交易,從A.E.PEAVEY處購得70個貯倉,合共5百萬[/size]
[size=4]浦式爾[/size][size=4](BUSHEL=60LBS)[/size][size=4]貯量設施,1904年時已增至1千2百萬BUSHEL.以此貯量,老何認為WILCOX賭連續�帠y失收。[/size]
[size=4]([size=3][color=red][i]RENNIE貯量26000TON=865,800BUSHEL,產能與貯量不�佌�,管理艱困可想而知[/i][/color][/size]).
WILCOX自1882年接手那4間廠,2年之內便能轉危為安,兼有盈利, 神仙乎？非也。
凡辦廠,從商以至個人理財皆明白流動資金之重要。1873金融恐慌以來, 銀行收緊信貸, 各行業皆叫苦連天,[/size]
[size=4]但那4間廠回到銀行手中,最頭痛之事從而消失,對WILCOX來說只餘整頓人事,協同運作。[/size]
[size=4]人事方面全面不變,困難是�s一各廠的文化及制度。[/size]
[size=4]�峖~耕云,WILCOX得到最寶貴的協同運作經驗,當PFMC成立,WILCOX已成為一個戰略型企業家了。
現在只餘建立銷售這一環節了。[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[img=640,518]http://www.buffaloah.com/a/ganson/250/image/rstanelec2.jpg[/img]

WILCOX 購自A.E.PAEVEY 70個貯倉中之一。

[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/3127348896_0b15c29017_b.jpg[/img]


[size=4]已列入美國國家登記冊之受保護的�f史性建築WILCOX故居 WILCOX MANOR[/size]

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-7-5 18:58 編輯 [/i]]

[size=4]介紹一些將會出現的人物[/size]

[size=5]冇佢就冇京師大學堂(北大前身) [/size]
[size=5]孫家鼐[/size]
[size=5][/size]

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-7-5 22:31 編輯 [/i]]

[size=5]冇佢, 麵粉市場WILCOX就惡晒[/size]

[size=6]宋嘉樹[/size][size=4]    知道是誰嗎？  [/size]
[size=4][/size]

[quote]原帖由 [i]老何[/i] 於 2009-7-5 21:57 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=7590436&ptid=250483][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
冇佢, 麵粉市場WILCOX就惡晒

宋嘉樹    知道是誰嗎？  
[/quote]

願聞其詳~:)

[quote]原帖由 [i]bobyjey[/i] 於 2009-7-6 05:04 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=7594268&ptid=250483][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]


願聞其詳~:) [/quote]

一看便知 ！

[size=5]一些歷史背景資料[/size]
[size=5]JOHN RUSSEL YOUNG 發表於NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,1892年5月[/size]
[size=5]426期上有關排華法案通過前一些場景.[/size]
[size=5]J R YOUNG 報人,美國駐華大使,當你去美國國會圖書館,你便會見度佢,因為佢系國會[/size]
[size=5]圖書館法案第一任負責人。[/size]
[size=5][/size]

[size=5]歷史背景資料 1904年8月7日,美國紐約時報THE NEW YORK TIMES[/size]

[quote]原帖由 [i]老何[/i] 於 2009-7-6 10:55 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=7595668&ptid=250483][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]


一看便知 ！ [/quote]
果然一圖驚醒~!
謝謝老何兄~!:loveliness:
再問宋家如何左右 Wilcox發展~?:wondering:

[size=5]吊頸嶺的故事
[/size][size=4]凄酸的華工-----北太�姜攓ORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD------麵粉大戰
------反排華,罷買行動------投海的蘭尼RENNIE---------LETTER B問題----------今日將軍澳.

麵粉大戰(5)[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4]乾隆以來,以科弟最盛為時人所譽者,當以七子登科的錢塘許家為首,次則是「一門三進士,五子四登科」的�u州孫家。
許氏不是故事中人,只談光緒師,百日維新各政事中,惟一被慈禧允許之京師大學堂創辦人孫家鼐的孫子孫多森。
RENNIE的廠房關閉, WILCOX不能雄霸太平洋東西�峏�,�u州孫多森就是攔路虎。
1889-1895接張之洞任�弮s總督的李瀚章(李合肥之長兄,其人與香港的故事及趣聞很多,有空時談)是孫多森的祖父。
異於同時代的官宦世家,這高幹子弟,受家族�f史影嚮,投身實業,有如�峖螟`督周馥子孫周學熙一樣。
老何認為孫多森對中國近代金融,實業之最大貢獻,是為公家而創立的[size=5][color=red][b]中國銀行[/b][/color][/size],因而施行的八局管理制
,亦[color=red][b]為現代化制度,建立基礎[/b][/color],其後孫家的中孚銀行是另一回事了。
圖片是由孫多森於上海創立,宋嘉樹從中穿針引線的中國第一間麵粉廠阜豐麵粉廠僅餘之管理樓及舊貌。
阜豐的成功,孫多森便繼續地在各地開辦,因其豐厚投資回報而引申出中國麵粉大王：無錫榮家。
有關孫家及阜豐的歷史,現其後人與中外學人正在整裡, 不日出版, 在此不再多說了。
大家猜猜RENNIE麵粉廠的生產設備去了那裡？
[/size]

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-7-8 10:49 編輯 [/i]]

[size=5]RENNIE間廠投產時面對的亞洲形勢1904年2月至1905年9月之日俄戰爭[/size]。
[size=5]俄羅斯扣押美商船「 阿拉伯」 號, 載有WILCOX的麵粉, 商情大亂[/size]。

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-7-8 10:35 編輯 [/i]]

[size=5]沙俄扣船,後續報導 1904 7 30[/size]

[size=4]KCC君, 你Email的3�蝪暋D,第一�蝳b這裡作答,因為只是歷史沿革,版友亦可能有興趣。
[/size]
[size=4]何以馬來西亞特別多華僑？
是啊,就因為馬來亞特別多華僑, 英國佬才夾硬將沙勞越塞入馬來亞,變成今天的東馬,西馬組成的馬來西亞,
將人口比例中,華人比例一次過溝淡, 從60%縮水至40%樓下,否則馬來亞在英人走後豈非變成中國的海外行省,[/size]
[size=4]馬來亞省。
總而言之, 英國佬在各殖民地留下的�w州,最少都令當地人煩多三五＋年, 最近中印東部邊境又再緊張,[/size]
[size=4]大馬,印尼,卸船艦炮衣對峙,即為例也。
從歷史看, 馬來西亞的佔有者,像走馬燈地轉過不停,印度,暹羅,柬浦寨以至近世葡,荷,英各百多年管治, [/size]
[size=4]而廣東梅縣人羅芳柏在西婆羅州的坤甸(認識坤甸這種木材的人多,羅芳柏就少人知)於1770年代建立中國人[/size]
[size=4]繼堯舜之後的另一個傳讓執政的共和國, 蘭芳大總制共和國,後為荷蘭人所滅,可想而知華人人口之眾多。[/size]
[size=4]隨後太平天國殘部葉來�s治吉隆坡一帶,在在說明,賣豬仔未盛行前,華人已在大馬落地生根,枝繁葉衍,人口眾多。
華人南下不斷,究其由,必有一二大事�˙F,而大動作海事遠航在三寶之前,惟元世祖1292年發大軍討伐印尼,敗,[/size]
[size=4]沉舟千艘,是為華人大量流散東南水域之始。[/size]
[size=4]英人於1819年佔星加坡,結束荷人在馬來半島之勢力,之前荷人棄守馬六甲,檳城等地東移爪哇,亦鼓勵華人東去,[/size]
[size=4]雖則如此,但英人開發馬來半島及婆羅州,引發更多華人南下,而賣豬仔行業興盛,加以1843年開始之太平天國內亂, [/size]
[size=4]亂民乘舟而至, 資源開發和政治動亂引至華人人口增加,這便是馬來西亞特別多華僑的原因。[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[img=898,923]https://qed.princeton.edu/images/9/9d/The_Chinese_in_southeast_Asia_c._1980.jpg[/img]

[[i] 本帖最後由 老何 於 2009-7-8 14:31 編輯 [/i]]

[size=5]下圖為百多年前在星加坡謀生之華人[/size]。


有個開平人,叫譚亞才,少時據稱被賣豬仔至星加坡,後在船塢當管工。
鴉片戰爭爆發,隨英軍來港組織軍糧供應及各种服務( 有如日軍佔駐廣東時,外號鳳凰九者一樣),激到林則除生蝦咁跳,
以奸民�薑�(以奸民數量而言, 中華民族為世之冠),戰後獲英人特別看待,賞大片土地於中上環,起樓收租,固中上環一帶,
特多開平人. 此君兼營豬仔業,賣落星馬者,多由其包辦.。











0




0

[size=5][color=red]明天北上 。[/color][/size]       後續預告 :WILCOX計劃獨吞香江市場。

[size=6]去掘金啦！[/size]唉！

347#

何兄所述的確是華人的苦難也是克苦的堅持，相信現在仍會上演這類賣豬仔，形式不同，本質一樣，要再看下回故事:loveliness:

[size=5]麵粉大戰(6)  ：鷸蚌相爭,漁人得利。
[/size]
[size=5]缺自知之明的RENNIE, 具龐大財力的豪雄WILCOX, 誓爭一口氣的孫,榮二家。[/size]
[size=5]留下了商場故事. 但坐觀虎鬥者才是最笑哈哈的人。
未講WILCOX如何開展他鯨吞亞洲市場大計前, 先講麵粉行業中,投入最小,[/size]
[size=5]而所得最大者,夠實際。
PORTLAND FLOURING MILLS 的亞洲代理人。
在現今德輔道中254號,百多年前是一間名為廣怡英的金山庄(港美出入口商),[/size]
[size=5]老闆是三間船公司的買辦(Pacific Mail, Occidental & Oriental, Yoyo Kisan,Kaisha),[/size]
[size=5]業務亦遍及菲,南洋一帶,絲制品出口巨商.老何冇記錯話,香港第一間全華資的保險公司[/size]
[size=5]「福安保險」便屬於他。他回港前在美開鞋廠致富,聘有80多洋人,華人數百,以當時的大氣候,是個非常特出的華人。
洋人稱其為Mr. Quan Kai. 廣東南海九江人 關俊臣 是也。廣怡英是他的操作工具。
下有一麵粉大戰,塵埃落定後廣怡英1920年2月的船期告白,面輪即麵粉輪船,[/size]
[size=5]那時面輪一般是8000/10000噸排水量,[/size][size=5]便可約知單是麵粉以九八佣行規的收入,[/size]
[size=5]廣怡英便冇咁好氣,袋袋平安,�藕袕�冇咁好執。[/size]
[size=5][/size]
[size=5]關俊臣[/size]
[size=5][/size]

回復 349# 的帖子

老何兄, Rennie的故事, 居然牽涉這麽多人的故事,好似电影的情節,引人入勝,老何編劇的功力了得!寫多些,不要吊我們的癮吧!