The Globe. THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 1877.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 792, 4 January 1877, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 1877.

The work aud rcßpousibilities emailed upon the various public bodies now ■ontroliing the interests of the public of Christchurch and its immediate neighbourhood, have of late very considerably increased. Besides the City Council, there have sprung up in existence one after the other, statutal bodies such as the Drainage Board, Waimakariri Board of Conservators and Board of Health, the duties of which are by no means of a light or unimportant character. The Legislature, unfortunately, has not always provided sufficient means for the due performance by these bodies, of the financial undertakings for which they were brought into existence. And, since the abolition of Provincialism, —as not long ago deplored by our late Mayormunicipalities will have to depend a good deal more than of yore upon their own resources, the days of special grants and legislative wind-falls having quite passed away. A discussion which took place on Monday in the City Council is obviously a case in point. The Council had received a communication from the Drainage Board with reference to the application of the powers vested in the latter

corporation by the Local Board of Health Act. The Board, anxious to carry out without delay the most important provisos of this valuable Health Act, had set to work. But, upon close scrutiny of the Act in question, it was found out that it failed to give power to the Board, of levying rates sufficient to cover the absolutely necessary expenditure which comes within its jurisdiction. When referred to on the subject, the General Government suggested that the corporations which formed the drainage districts, —that is to say, the city and the adjoining Road Boards, should be appealed to in the matter, and asked to furnish among themselves the amount required by the Local Board of Health. That amount, it was thought, would be covered by a rate of from one penny to one penny farthing in the pound upon the annual valuation of property. At the first blush of the proposal it seems that some of our city representatives allowed the feeling of antagonism against the Drainage Board to be revived. A proposition was first submitted which reads very much as if the Board was told to mind its own business, and not interfere withjits neighbour’s. Mr Ick once again repeated the old threadbare homily about the slur cast upon Christchurch, when allowing its drainage and sanitary matters to be weaned from the motherly bosom of the civic authorities. But, at last, better counsels prevailed, and the question was adjourned for further consideration, so as to enable, we hope, more prudent counsels to have sway. As Mr Hobbs tersely put it, the point at issue appears simply to be —not whether such or such sums of money should or should not be saved from ratepayers pockets, but by what formula and through which channel or agency the needed taxation shall be raised. Is the public, in fact, to pay Peter or to pay Paul, when either stands forward as the peoples’ representative, elected to carry out certain duties for the public good at the ratepayers request. Whether Messrs Ick and Co consider their toes trodden upon if a certain quantum of taxing power be taken from their grasp, to be entrusted to that of other men, is a question in which the public at large feel no great interest of a very alarming nature. Theworkhastobe done and the sooner the provisions of the Health, Drainage, or other Acts bearing upon the cleanliness and health of the community are brought into practical utility, the better will it be for everyone. Of course, we, as well as the great mass of the body politic which they represent, feel the greatest possible concern that the City Councillors should maintain and preserve, at all risks and at any cost, that dignity and prestige which —in the eyes of some of those gentlemen at all events —seem of incalculable value. And on those grounds perhaps we quite agree with what fell from Cr. Thomson’s lips when he so strongly animadverted upon Mr. Hobbs’ remark respecting the duality of responsibilities held hy the latter. Mr. Hobbs, foolishly we think, had expressed his determination of abstaining from voting on questions in which the Drainage Board and the City Council were interested, and Mr. Thomson urged that if such was his determination, it was dealing unfairly with those whose interests he had been elected to represent. We do not wish to plunge into “ odorous ” comparisons, but would only bring to Mr. Hobbs’ mind some old saying in which a lady belonging to an ancient Roman, named Csesar was closely concerned. We really believe that Mr. Hobbs is above suspicion ; his past civic career has amply testified to it. But should any qualms of conscience at all trouble that gentleman, we would then strongly advise him to give up his mormonistic proclivities, be off with one of his municipal loves, and cling faithfully to the other.