The Evening Star SATURDAY, MARCH 14, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3451, 14 March 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, MARCH 14, 1874

Equally sensible of the importance of good drainage of the City with those members of the Corporation who have so determinately pressed their own scheme, we doubt their methods. The plan as decided upon, if carried out as proposed, will not meet the requirements of the City ; and if it did, one of two effects must follow : either the Bay must be polluted in the immediate

neighborhood of the City, or the pollution from Dunedin must poison some other district on its shores. At the last discussion on the subject, Mr Barnes, the .authority on whom the other members seemed to lean, very much modified his formerly expressed views. He seemed to have at last become aware that there is such a style of doing things that, in avoiding Scylla, it is possible to fall into Charybdis. He, therefore, showed how it would be necessary to provide means for prevention of solids being carried into the Bay, and described how all danger of pollution could be avoided. But we do not find any other plan now proposed than getting rid of surface water,

and we have yet to learn that an extensive system of underground drainage is at all recessary for that. What seems now designed is merely to substitute artificial for natural channels for draining the watershed, and we fancy there are plenty of engineers, including the City Engineer, who would have undertaken to do that at much less cost than that of underground drainage. There are many people who seem to imagine when a drain is made, all is done that need be done to ensure local health, and if an underground drain is made, it must

answer the purpose. We suppose it is on the principle on which an ostrich hides its head when overtaken by hunters, apparently fancying if danger is not seen it does not exist. But for our own parts we cannot see what danger can accrue from surface drainage of surface water, in a town with such opportunity of flushing the water-courses when necessary. If it is not purposed to include solids in the underground drainage system, the expense is comparatively useless, and the health of the City, excepting in one or two lowlying localities, where the owners at their own expense could improve their property, will not be benefited. If it is intended to include solids, and those drains about to be constructed are to be the insertion of the wedge to lull the well-grounded apprehensions of those who, on sanitary grounds, oppose the plan, we again urge the postponement of the matter, at least until the report of the Committee on Harbor Improvement is before the public. The idea of rendering the Upper Harbor accessible to ships of heavy tonnage is not abandoned. Contrary to the rush-

ing at remedies through plans, the effects of which cannot possibly be foreseen by the members of the Corporation who support them, because of the imperfect evidence before them, the Committee have taken pains to obtain the best opinions available as to the measures necessary, and the expenses of harbor improvements, and their report may tend considerably to modify the action of the Corporation in their views on drainage. We are not acquainted with the recommendations they are prepared to make ; but this is certain, that the sanitary effect of deepening the channel, and of City drainhge into the Bay, must incidentally come under consideration either directly or inferentially. It is quite within the range of possibility that the plans of the Corporation may interfere with those necessary for harbor improvement j or that the minute inquiry that will be instituted by men of the highest

scientific attainments, may justify a broader and more complete scheme of drainage than is now contemplated. Mr Barnes and his supporters must not be offended when we inform them that there are many among those best able to form an opinion, who, while giving them credit for good intentions, do not think their judgment is reliable beyond matters that can be seen and handled. They may be able to understand how waste water can be got rid of through a drain or culvert, and even the more difficult problem, the direction the solids contained in it may take when thrown into the Bay. But though Mr Barnes affirms he has so studied the subject of drainage as to know all concerning it, we do not think he does, or he would have less confidence in the opinions he expresses. We do not think he has realized the idea that not even the ablest engineer can, with absolute certainty, foretell the effect of engineering operations in tidal harbors, and consequently much less would he be able to predict the chemical results

of City drainage into such waters. If Mr Barnes and his supporters knew the possibility of their being mistaken, and could understand that the consequences of a mistake will probably be to induce the very evil they wish to avoid, though backed by the verdict of a public meeting, they would at least wait to see if their plans and those for harbor improvement coincide. Wlieji all is ascertained that man is capable of ascertaining before committing ourselves to certain steps, posterity cannot I'epfoach us with leaving the legacy Qf

a disease-breeding barber, but until that is done, it is not wise to ride another man’s hobby, however handsome it may be. We do not wish to be misunderstood. We are not opposed to drainage of the City: the whole course of our advocacy for years has been in favor of well-devised sanitary measures. Our opposition is to imperfect methods, hurried on by incompetent men or quacks. If on sufficient evidence the Corporation plan is proved the best, it would have our support; it is because the evidence is insufficient, and in our opinion adverse to it, that we recommend hesitation.