HUTT BOROUGH AFFAIRS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 571, 28 July 1909, Page 10

HUTT BOROUGH AFFAIRS.

MR. W. H. RUSSELL IN REPLY. SURFACE DRAINAGE Regarding Major M'Donald'B statement ' touching tho flutt borough affairs, which appeared in last Wednesdays issue, Mi v I TV H. Russoll state? —"I am amazed that a gentleman who was Mayor during tho m- , coptlon, and tho carrying out, of a largfc portion of the loan woiks, should havo forgotten what are now matters of authentic history Major M'Donald says that no in- 1 creaso of'jvages was gianted m Ins timo r butlliavo th eauthonty of tho Borough Engineer and se.oial members of Ins council lor saying that an increase was given at .that timo Mi Meason, in his report on ' tho confiims thib, as ho states that an ofhcial leturn shows' that an increase'in tho rate of wages accounted for £1132 of tho extra cost As to who mauguiated thn day-lahoui sjstem, Mujor 4 M'Donald proves conclusively that his council made this depaituio on starting the'cieek diversions He sajs they decided that aTI drains, and opening and filling of trenches, were to be done by contract if so, why s was not that sjstem pursued in legard to ;tho many important diains laid down bj ' his council in 1906 71* Not a pick was then , , put into tho ground excepting k by da/ labour If tho Evei est Cicek money , was not utilised on surface drainage, in othci > 'places) what was tho necessity for his council to pass tho tliveision resolution already 1 published? Sniely thoro was nq occasion ' to bind the incoming council? ■; "In January, 1905, reporting on tho qucs--1 tion of surface diamago, tho consulting 'eii j gineers said. 'Beyond tho creeks no extensive outlay is necessary foi surface drainage We estimate, that £<100 will do all that is really required' The couliciU allowed £930, which included the cost of rectifying ,tho imporfect woiK done, undoi contract, in the Middle Waiwctu Road Major ' i M'Donald's council did not then lecogniso "• tho urgency of the want of drninago on tho Tamo Estate, but subsequently i they spent £4465 on surface drainage, tho Middlo Wai- ■■ wetu drain alone accountig tor £2000 Ho states that surface drainage Was the first consideration with In. counoil Tlio consulting engineers otherwise, and placed the sewage draiflago first, it lias been tho last to be taken in hand Major "M'Donald is again wrong when he says that "thieo" sepirate loans were pta.vrf before tho ratepayers The proposal / was 'to borrow by way of loan the sum of v < £52 ( 000," to bo applied in certain 'propoitions' But the voting papor is loosely and it makes no mention of 'smface' drainage It says 'diamage, sewage, and sanitation, £29,400 ' I hayo not been ' ablo to glean the meaning of tho term 'sewage and sanitation,' but I can quite ' understand the old,council, in 1906, npply- • * jing the word 'drainage' in a very wide sense / If there were 'three' separate loans, i why i ~ j does nob Major M'Donald's balance-sheet rfoi ' 1906-7 show tho precise allocations to each loan? Instead, wc find cvuythmg jumbled up under tho heading '£52,000 drainage, /Water-supply, and street-improvemeiits loan, 1905,' the total expenditure being given at t £23,525 Mr I'cteikin's council in tlio fol- ) lowing two years expended £17,800 " v What did you think of tho resolution which the council passed on Wednesday? asked the repoitei t "Well," said Mi Russell, "it is an indication that this matter >is at last approaching a conclusion Tho council, on the castingvote of the Mayor, and, after 'an inquiry which has taken nearly three, months, involving tho calling in of threo extra en-, 1 ' ' girteeis, have lesolvcd that tfip Borough En- , ginoer is not 'pntirely' to blamo foi alleged excess of cxpendituio Has the. end juati- £ fied tho expense' How many chains of drains could have been done for the amount wasted on this inquiry!' jj 01Vj i mvito the ft Mayor to pursuo tho inquiry a little furw tliel, and to say who else, if anyone, should H come in for a portion of the blame., \yill "hi accept the invitation■"' '"