THE Evening Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1869.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1998, 30 September 1869, Page 2

THE Evening Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1869.

The importance of a full supply of water to Port Chalmers is too great to permit the question to be summarily dismissed from public consideration. The attention that we have given to it has already elicited some disclosures respecting the working of the Municipal Council there, and those disclosures prove how necessary the public Press is to the welfare of any community. It can hardly be deemed satisfactory to be told that a Committee appointed to consider and report upon a proposition, fulfils its duty by “concluding a proposal withdrawn,” and therefore that no report is necessary. Surely should the proposition have been actually “ withdrawn,” which by Mr Dalrym--I>le’s own showing was not the case, it was the clear duty of the Committee to "report to that effect. But when, in-

stead of that, “ further talk ” ensues between, the proposer and the Committee on so important a subject as supplying a township with water, the Committee ought to have felt that nothing short of an exhaustive examination of it would fulfil the duty remitted to them. We do not feel called upon to pronounce judgment upon the merits of the plan proposed by Mr Murray, nor upon these suggested in Mr Dalrymplh’s second fetter. The data laid before us are insufficient to justify such an expression of opinion, and no conclusion on the comparative advantages of different schemes can be fairly arrived at by any other process than a scientific examination of the district by a competent sui'veyor. But it is a different matter when the arguments of Municipal Councillors of a past or present Council favor the public with reasons for a clear omission of duty. Why did it not come out before that the proposal of Mr Murray was only limited to the supply of certain streets, and that the Committee did not consider the Municipality would get enough for their money should the Corporation fall in with it 1 This, surely, was a fair subject for report. It is just possible that in a small town like Port Chalmers, where everybody knows everybody else’s business, those limited notions entertained by Mr Murray, of the limits of the township, were passed from mouth to mouth by way of gossip, and with the customary exaggeration of contractedness consequent on the hearsay system ; and just because of that tendency, we hold that it was the duty of the Committee to have made public the true character of the proposals made, in order that the reasons that led them to recommend the adoption or rejection of them might be open to consideration. We are by no means sure that the people of the township coincide in opinion with Mr Dalrymple in the soundness of his views on the water question. When a proposal is made to supply water for a given sum to specified localities, it may be fairly enquired on what data “ the “ Town Council may reasonably add “ L 2,000 for land and contingencies.” In a town where the level of the streets varies so much as does that of the Port, it is impossible at any reasonable expense to supply water to every house. Those who enjoy the luxury of mountain breezes and wide prospects must be content to take measures for saving water, but they will, at any rate, not be liable to be taxed for it. They may find it necessary to exercise a “little foresight,” in order to save a sufficient supply of water “ for domestic use.” But unfortunately, when this is necessary, the quantity used for domestic purposes is restricted by the exercise of that same prudent foresight that tends to preparations for saving rain water, and in many cases, health, cleanliness, and their accompanying moral purity, suffer. This is no imaginary consequence of an insufficient water supply. An able writer on Sanitary Economy, says : “ We cannot make the mind clean by “ washing and adorning the body, for “ vice often dwells in palaces and pur- “ pie. But when we remove external “ filth and disorder, we withdraw one “ of the main causes of degradation and “ vice. Jlowever self-constituted and “ self-supporting the human mind may “ be, it is dependent on adaptations “ from without, and is bent and “ moulded by the physical circumstances “ in which it is placed. The personal “ cleanliness which every well-regulated “ mind strives after, makes a vain “ struggle with the accumulated im- “ purities of a great city. That self- “ respect of which it is the external “ symbol gives way, and other kinds of “ self-respect follow it.” It does not seem to us that a Corporation stands excused from fulfilling one of its primary duties, because there are people in the world so wedded to acquired habits as to decline to use any other water than that which has been saved from the smoke polluted roofing of a house ; and as for demurring to paying assessment, it is not apparently considered that the apparatus necessary for saving a limited supply of rain water costs more annually than the expense of a lavish supply from effective water works. On inquiry as to the cost of water at Port Chalmers, we were not surprised to find it almost prohibitory so far as shipping are concerned, and we are not aware that the inhabitants of the place are more favored. The Corporation must make up their minds on this point, that they lie under a grave responsibility. Their duties are not merely confinod to improving the streets, but to adopting every public measure tending to the physical and moral well-being of the town, and foremost amongst these are water supply, draining, and lighting. The first and the last, by proper arrangements, can be made selfsupporting, and even profitable, at less cost to those who are benefitted than is now incurred for the imperfect substitutes they use. By the introduction of a full supply of -water, health, safety

from fire, and extension of manufactures might be secured ) and in a variety of ways the cost would be more than repaid to the town. Whether “ the former and the present Town “ Council of Port Chalmers ’ did wisely in rejecting Mr Murray s proposals or not, is nothing to the purpose. When they rejected them they allowed the subject to drop. If his scheme was the best and cheapest that could ho adopted, we say unhesitatingly they did unwisely. If there is a better plan, what is it?