The Globe. TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1876.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 566, 11 April 1876, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1876.

Ero.m the tenor of a letter which appears in this morning’s Press. Mr. Charles Elockton, the writer, infers that the Provincial Government intend handing over to the Drainage Board the sums voted as premiums for the host and second best designs for the drainage of Christchurch and the suburbs. What tiie ratepayers of the district have to consider is how far the Provincial Government has pledged itself to throw the system of drainage to bo adopted open to competition, and how far the Drainage Board since its inauguration has conceded to this avowal. There is evidently something radically inconsistent on the part of the Provincial Government, or on that of the Drainage Board. The Government advertised for competitive designs, whilst the Board appoint their own officers without carrying out the advertised intentions of the Provincial Government. It is to be much regretted the public bodies have no

system by which they can work in union. In the first instance the works appear to have been open for fair and honest competition, then this is withdrawn, and engineers selected and appointed by the Board, without any such competition being solicited. The Drainage Board may have made the very beat selection possible in regard to the appointments of the gentlemen to whom it has entrusted the works, but it would have been a far more satisfactory proceeding to the ratepayers had it thought it advisable to have followed in its integrity the proposal for competitive designs. Mr. Flockton remarks in his letter referring to the Engineer-in-Chief’s preliminary report to the Drainage Board, that he speaks generally of the absence of information and levels in the plans furnished him, and the Board refers to the necessity of levels being immediately taken. Mr. Elocktou says : —“A gross injustice has “ been done by these ill-considered “ assertions ; as the Board were at the “ time in possession of carefully pre- “ pared plans, containing ample in- “ formation and levels of the whole of “ the proposed drainage area, including “ rivers, outfall and other drains, the “ whole being referred to a common “ datum, namely—High water at spring “ tides on Sumner bar. All these par- “ ticulars were obtained and furnished “ by the Provincial Engineer’s depart- “ raent some time previous to the “ formation of the Drainage Board.”

Now if Mr Flockton’s assertion is correct, and we have no reason to suppose otherwise, it is quite as well that the public should have some information afforded them as to the reason why these levels were not furnished to the Engineer-in-Chief. Here is presumptive evidence that the ratepayers will have to pay twice over for the same work; and, if this is the

style of economy which is to be prevalent in the conducting of the measures during the existence of the Drainage Board, it will no doubt tend, as Mr Elockton suggests, to induce many owners of property, deriving no direct benefit from this undertaking, to dispose of their property and leave the district. There is a grave amount of disquietude likely to be entertained concerning the whole of these unexplained complications, which we think the Drainage Board should take the earliest possible opportunity to remove. We believe that there should be no possible objection thrown in the way of a statement being made as to the cause of the competition for designs being withdrawn.