WATER AND DRAINAGE.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 313, 14 January 1902, Page 3

WATER AND DRAINAGE.

(To the Editor of the Times,)

3ir, —There fire ono or two remarks in your leading article of yesterday s issue upon this subject that call for special attention. The first is the ono calling upon the supporters of the scheme to have mattors placed fairly before the people, to cheek every step rnado by tho opponents, and to combat their arguments, etc. Now, I sincorely hopo the supporters of tho scheme will take the hint from you, so that the question can bo discussed upon its merits. Up to the present the Borough Council, as the real supporters of the scheme, have steadfastly refused to discusb the scheme upon its merits. They havo preferred to swallow holus bolus, without question or comment, the whole of Mr Mestayer’s scheme. It is a little late in the day to discuss it, but better late than nover. . . Cr. Kennedy admitted the real position at the public meeting, when he stated regarding tho information Mr King, the Harbor Engineer, gave them, bearing on the septic tank system, that it may have seemed discourteous to him because they would not discuss or consider it. The fact is if they did discuss the matter on its merits, and weighed the schemes with others, it would kid the schemes, and I challenge the Councillors favoring the scheme, or you, Mr Editor, to show Mr Mestayer’s scheme of either water and drainage are good and reliable schemes. If you try it they will tumble to pieces,

xC is all very well to rub our hands, and say we want water and drainage, and people are opposing it to suit their breeches’ pockets. There are no arguments as to the true merits of the scheme. They are only idle and childish prattle. Give us some solid facts, favorable to the scheme, and leave these generalities alone. Regarding the drainage question, the Council £iß & Council do not know where they are, and they will not know what schemo thoy should disouss lest they might give their future intentions away. The Mayor acknowledges they have not decided what drainage scheme we arc to havo. This being so, you are only wasting your ink to ask the supporters of the schemes to give and discuss the solid facts, for they do not know where they are, and what to discuss. Then regarding the cry that if the Waibirere scheme is rejected there will be no water schemo for ten or. twenty years, this is again a weak and idle argument. If the schemes are bad, what good will they do us ? A bad scheme is dear at any cost, and will, in fact, stop us getting a <mod scheme for the next ten or twenty years, but on this head I disagree With this cry in toto, and promise that not twenty days will go by after the rejection of the present scheme before the Council will have to consider alternative proposals for both water and drainage. It is impossible for me to go into the alternative schemo with you, Mr Editor, now, as 1 am dealing with it through your contemporary’s columns. I will bo glad if you will accept from mo suilicicnt loose copies of what I am publishing to distribute to your numerous town and suburban readers, and in this way I am sure you will bo rendering good service, and assistincr the distribution of the real and true facts regarding these schemes, which after all is what I believe you aimed at in yourleadin'* article ; but unfortunately you appealed to the side who have no real facts to give.—l am, etc., Douglas las^ar.