The Globe. THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 850, 15 March 1877, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1877.

Jr the deputation which waited on the Drainage Board on Monday last are satisfied with (ho answer they have received, all we can say is that very little pleases them. The deputation wanted to know what portion of Mr Carruther’s report it was the intention of the Board to immediately carry out, and they are told that it is the intention of the Board to carry out with as little delay as possible the system of sewers laid down in Mr Carruthers’ plan, that system being in their opinion complete and comprehensive, comprising within its area Christchurch proper and some of the suburbs mentioned. The Board further assured the deputation that no sewage is to be discharged into the estuary, beyond that which at present finds its way there by the rivers or the existing drains; and their ultimate decision as to the disposal of the sewage when collected will be delayed until the they have obtained the fullest information to enable them to come to a satisfactory conclusion. This answer is so far satisfactory. We have at last, a distinct assurance on the part of the Board that the estuary is not, to be converted into an open cesspool, for the filth of Christchi rch and its suburbs. But if we mistake not the public want far more information than they have got. We had hoped to have had an assurance from the Board that the whole question of the drainage of the City would be re-considered. But no ! Mr. Carruthers’ system of sewers is to be carried out with as little delay as possible, ah an estimated cost of £107,000. The sewage is to be conveyed to the estuary at any rate, but whether it is to be discharged into the sea or into the deep water of the estuary, or by Dumping it overland for the purpose of filtration, the Board have not yet decided.

Now it appears to us that the Board are treating the public, who have to pay for this scheme, with but scant consideration. With the exception of the Board and its engineers, opinion is almost unanimous against the deep seweraysterajandsome of the individual members of the Board have ackuovvledged as much. Yet in spite of all that, they have resolved to ignore that opinion entirely, and commit the district to an indefinite expenditure, the first instalment of which amounts to the nice little sum of £167,000. We suppose the written answer sent to the deputation may be taken to represent the united opinion of the Drainage Board, but it is worthy of notice how completely it contradicts the opinions expressed by some of its individual members at the same interview. In their written reply they say it is their intention “ to carry out with as little delay as possible, the system of sewers laid down in Mr. Carruthers’ plan,” Mr. Wright stated in the course of the meeting that the works they intended to do were two of the trunk sewers, Mr. Harman said, “ if the city and suburbs agree to delay, the Board would be perfectly willing to agree.” Yet we are told the system of sewers is to be carried out with as little delay as possible, although the public have clearly expressed a desire for delay. Again, Mr. Hobbs states, “ We do not intend to carry out the plan if the ratepayers object to it. But the part we have now put in hand is not connected with the general scheme , it is a separate matter, and is to provide for the storm water to be removed.” We do not profess to be able to reconcile these conflicting statements. There is a key to them no doubt, but we are not at present in possession of it.

Mk. Cathcaet Wason addressed the electors of Coleridge district on Tuesday evening, at Ashburton, in a clever speech, in which he reviewed at length those subjects which more immediately occupied Ids own attention during the lust session of the Assembly. After giving his reasons for voting against the Government on the Piako swamp question, and giving a tribute of praise to Sir George Grey, for what he characterised as yeoman service to the country in endeavouring to check and restrain the system of land administration in the North Island, Mr. Wason went on to refer to the Registration of Electors Bill, introduced by the Government and afterwards dropped; and to the Rating Bill. He had very little to say in defence of the course he took on the run question. We are ghc'. however, to see that he isiram;

enough to admit that the system of auction proposed by him was condemned by so large a majority aa to show the futility of bringing it forward again. We moreover hope Mr. Wason is convinced not only of the futility of his proposal, but of its utter fatuity as well. Had Mr. Wason been successful Ihe largest and important industry of the province would have been completely ruined. Millions of sheep would have been thrown upon the market at once, and a large body of our settlers brought to the verge of bankruptcy, ilia views regarding the laud fund, and separation, were cleverly put, but we are afraid the majority of the people of Canterbury will not be disposed to agree with his views on those points either. Mr. Wason proposes to make our land fund safe by placing what he calls the impassable river of separation between it, and its enemies in the North. Were this a sufficient remedy, it would in our opinion be far worse than the disease. The interests of the colony, and of each part, would be better served by a united purse and a united land fund than under the scheme of separationbrought forward last session. Under it it was proposed that the Middle Island should pay a large sum annually for the privilege of being separated from the North. But it was shown at the time, and it has never been contradicted since, that Canterbury would be worse off under the system proposed by Sir George Grey than she would be were her land fund made colonial at once. As separation can only be defended on purely selfish grounds, and as the arguments in that direction have, in our opinion, completely failed, it is not necessary to refer at length to the other reasons advanced by Mr. Wason in its favour. With his views on the Counties Act, and other questions, we shall deal again in a future issue.

The recent discussion on the drainage question has called forth all kinds of professional opinions upon the subject. The latest contribution to the drainage literature, and, in our opinion, the most important since Mr. Carruthers’ plan was published at any rate, is that of our old friend Mr. William White, which we publish elsewhere. This gentleman’s abilities as a practical engineer are well known in Canterbury. For years past his name has been associated in one way or another with important public works. Nor is this particular question a new one to him. Years ago, when the City Council called for competitive plans, he submitted one which was accepted with slight modifications as the best, and since that time it is well known that the drainage of Lake Ellesmere has occupied a large share of his attention. The scheme which Mr. White now places before the public has the meric of simplicity, and we hope that it will not for that reason be passed over without careful consideration by those in authority.

Following the example of the majority of the Councils in Canterbury, the Ashburton County Council has resolved that the third schedule of the Act is not to come into force in that district. Messrs Saunders and Wright were the only two members who wished the Act brought into operation, but notwithstanding their energetic appeals the majority were perfectly satisfied that the Eoad Boards were competent to carry out "all the local works required in the district. The Council accordingly passed a resolution dealing with the monies accruing from the land fund, whereby it will be distributed to the Eoad Boards in proportion to the total area of land sold in each Eoad district up to the end of the current financial year; and all other revenue is to be handed to the particular Eoad Board in which it arises.