THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 857, 23 March 1877, Page 3

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

PUBLIC MEETING

A meeting of the ratepayers of Christchurch, Spreydon, Heathcote, &c, was held at Radclifle’s Hotel last f hursday, to consider the question of circulating a petition to the Drainage Board asking them to resign. There was a very large attendance. On the motion of Mr Wynn Williams the Hon J. T. Peacock took the chair. The Chairman said the meeting was convened by circular, and no doubt Mr Wynn Williams would explain the reason of calling the meeting. Mr Williams said a number of the Heathcote residents had called upon him to take steps to get a meeting in Christchurch of city ratepayers and otherdistrictstoconsiderwhat should be done in consequence of the answer given to the deputation recently waiting on the Drainage Board. The present meeting was therefore to see what steps they should take, as the Board had decided to carry out the system known as Mr Carruthers’, and had advertised for tenders for the construction of the Ferry road sewer. The action of the Board was quite opposed to that of similar Boards elsewhere, who had placed before the ratepayers the statement of cost and details of the scheme. Here, however, the Board had done nothing of the kind, and had decided on forcing the sewage of Christchurch on to the estuary, of which the Heathcote people had just cause to complain. Beyond this, the ratepayers had cause of complaint, because the Board had neither considered the ultimate disposal of the sewage and night soil or the cost of the scheme. What he thought the Board should do was to satisfy the ratepayers, before spending a large sum of money, that they had made up their minds as to the ultimate result of the scheme. The public, who had to pay for the work, were satisfied of this, that the Board had not done its duty by refusing to place an estimate of cost before them, and also to show what they had decided to do as regarded the ultimate disposal of the sewage. The Board had also quite omitted to provide for the drainage of rural dis tricts, which was of a different kind, and far less expensive than that in the city. The residents ip the country would have thus to contribute to a scheme expensive in its details, for the town only. This he thought was a vicious system, and he felt that this point ought to be taken up by those living in the country. The question now arose what was the course to be adopted to bring the Drainage Board to a sense of their position. It was suggested that petitions, asking the Drainage Board to resign, should be circulated throughout the

district, and then if they declined to do so, the ratepayers would be in a stronger posi tion. He might say that at the mayoral dinner a few nights back Mr Hobbs stated, in reply to the toast of the Drainage Board, that they intended to defy the opposition and live it down. (Oh, oh !) He was prepared to state that this was what had passed. Now Mr Hobbs, or whoever drafted the answer to the deputation, said that the Board intended to canyon work for eighteen months or so. when they went out of office, and then it could be decided whether the scheme should be proceeded with. That was, that after spending as much money as they could during the eighteen months, they might then have to lose all the money they had expended —perhaps some £50,000 or more. The ratepayers, therefore, under the circumstances, that the Board had not placed any statement of coat before them, had asked them to stay their hand. But they had declined, and had also asserted their intention of proceeding with the work despite the protests of the public. Well, if the Board declined to resign in compliance wi<h the petitions, which he hoped would be numerously signed, his idea was that the Heathcote people should apply to the Court for an injunction through their Road Board. They had ample evidence that the Board intended carrying the drainage into the Heathcote, and they would therefore be able to go to the Court strengthened with ample affidavits. The Christchurch people could not do so because the Board had not yet made up its mind what it was going to do with the sewage, and it would therefore be impossible to go to the Court and say that the scheme would be prejudicial to health, Therefore, the Heathcote people were the only ones in a position to go on with the injunction. As to the question of cost, the Board knew nothing whatever of it, and so far from the amount stated being sufficient to carry out the scheme, half a million of money would not be sufficient to carry out the scheme. He understood that some gentleman would move a resolution as to petitions being circulated, and he hoped he would be supported. [Cheers.] Mr L. E. Nathan said he desired at that early stage of the meeting to put Mr Williams right as to the statement made by Mr Hobbs at the mayoral dinner. He (Ur Nathan) was present at the time, and he said most distinctly that the remarks of Mr Hobbs could not bear the interpretation put on it by Mr Williams. He considered it as due to Mr Hobbs that he should state this, though not agreeing with him. Mr J. T. Fisher, M.H.8., said he had been asked to move a resolution affirming the necessity of the Drainage Board being called upon to resign, [Hear, hear.J He did so with very great pleasure, because the Board bad far exceeded the powers vested in it by the Act. [Hear, hear.J He must say that the cost now contemplated was far more than was necessary. He would not detain them longer, but would move—“ That a petition calling upon the Drainage Board to resign be circulated throughout the Christchurch Drainage District for signature.” [Hear, hear.] Dr Florance seconded the motion. He thought there could be no doubt about it that the irresponsible manner in which the Drainage Board had acted was wrong in the extreme. They had not treated the ratepayers fairly, as they had come forward without the scheme being put into working order or having it thoroughly matured. The way in which the Board had acted was a disgrace to the name of Englishmen. He begged to seconded the motion. Mr Nairn said that, as a member of the Spreydon Hoad Board, he had proposed a Drainage Board, of which the Mayor and the chairmen of the Avon, Spreydon, Riccarton, and Heathcote should be members. What he wanted to see was that the Board should sit as a court between the five districts. The local boards should do the work, and not the Drainage Board, which should partake of the character of a Court of Appeal. He contended that Mr Hobbs had acted as a traitor to the City Council by getting a Bill in through the General Assembly to ride rough shod over the City Council. This was how he had acted as a traitor to the power which had made him. He did not think that the Drainage Board would resign in compliance with the petition. Not they. They would simply laugh at their request. But when they did this they would become marked men. He saw the result in his native town, where the Borough Council would not resign. They became marked men. Three of them became bankrupt within a year, and the other three were driven out of the town. He should not be at all surprised if Mr Wright—the only man who knew anything about public works—would very probably resign his seat, and take the contract himself. The other members of the Board knew nothing of works, but that was the fault of the ratepayers in not sending practical men to represent them. He hoped the petition would be largely signed, but he did not believe the Board would accede to the request. Mr E. B. Bishop said that the Board had decided to send forth a lithographed plan. Until this was in their hands he, for one, could not vote for this resolution. When he had studied the plan he should be able to decide whether the Board had deserved being called upon to resign or not. This would only be common fairness to the Board. Mr Nathan thought that by adopting the resolution now before the meeting they would bo acting somewhat hastily. The deputation which had waited on the Board had asked them to have a lithographed plan of the scheme prepared, and until the ratepayer had had an opportunity of considering this he thought they should not take any action. When they had this before them they could decide whether the Board had done right or not. There was one thing which he was sorry the Board bad not seen fit to comply with, and that was the request of the deputation for delay. As the Board intended to proceed with the work the supply of the plans was of no use whatever. Therefore he thought the best method would be to have a petition prepared to the Board, asking them to delay the work until the ratepayers had had a chance of studying the plans. They might find themselves in this position if they carried the Resolution now before them, that they would ask these gentlemen to resign, and then they might find that the plans were the best that could be got. The result would be then that they would have new men elected to carry out the plans. He thought the Board were of opinion that the opposition was only from a small section of the ratepayers, but if they got the petition as ho proposed largely signed they would see that the feeling was general, Mr P. Kerr stated that Mr Wright at Woolston had fully and freely said that the Board intended to carry out the scheme,

Mr H. A. Bamford said that in his opinion the promise of plans was a delusion, because the work on the Ferry road would be carried out, or rather commenced, months before the plans were in the hands of the ratepayers.

The Chairman said he had asked the question of the Drainage Board whether the Perry road sewer was necessary, whether the whole scheme was carried out or not, and he was told that it was. He might say that he was of the same opinion as Mr Nathan, that the resolution before them was of too sweeping a character. Dr Frankish quite agreed with Mr Nathan and the chairman, and he perfectly recollected that the Board had stated that the Perry road sewer was a necessity, whether the whole work was carried out or not. He (Dr Prankish) had asked certain questions of the Board, and had been told that system No I and system No 2 must be carried out together, or system No 1 should require to be of larger calibre. It would be decidedly unfair to Mr Garruthers to carry out only a portion of his scheme until he had had an opportunity of making the system of a larger calibre. The question to be decided was this? Was it worth while to spend J 6155,000 to carry away storm water? The Board had stated that they did not intend to carry water closet dejecta ; but if it was only intended to carry storm water, it seemed to him that £156,000 was far too much to pay for it. [Hear, hear.] The Board, it seemed to him, did not think that the meeting at the Oddfellows’ Hall represented public opinion, hence they had not paid that attention to their complaints which they deserved. Dr Turnbull, much as he sympathised with the Heathcote residents, did not think that they ought to carry the resolution now before the meeting. They had not yet exhausted the constitutional methods of approaching a public body elected by the ratepayers. He agreed with Mr Bishop that they should wait until the lithographed scheme was before them. He was as determined an opponent of the drainage scheme as any one, but he said that they should not act hurriedly or precipitately, so -as to give the Board the opportunity of twitting them with having adopted a hasty course, while their ideas were crude and ill-formed. He thought that Dr Frankish had hit the blot when he said that the Board did not either individually or collectively as a Board realise the widespread nature of the opposition to their scheme. He felt certain that this was the case, and he thought they should approach the Board with a largely signed petition asking the Board to delay action for three months or longer until the ratepayers had an opportunity of considering the plans. This would be the means of unsealing the eyes of the Board as to the opposition, as he felt that nine-tenths of the whole residents of the district would sign such a petition. If they did not then comply, after constitutionally approaching them, he for one should then moat determinedly support any request for their immediate resignation. [Hear, hear.J He was of opinion that the drainage scheme proposed would not only ado to their load of debt, but would also endanger the health of the inhabitants. [Cheers.] He trusted, however, that the meeting would adopt the suggestion of Mr Nathan. Dr Florance said they |had had public meeting after public meeting on the subject, and they now lost confidence in the Board. What he now said was this, let them put the right men in the right place. [Hear ] Mr Williams said they would all regret any division of opinion at the meeting, and after hearing the remaiks of Dr Frankish, Dr Turnbull, Mr Nathan, and the chairman, he was inclined to defer to them. It had been often found that conciliatory measures brought about what was wanted far sooner than more aggressive proceedings, He believed, however, that the Board had so conducted themselves that they would be perfectly justified in asking the Board to resign. But still he felt inclined to ask Mr Fisher to withdraw his resolution, and put one instead asking the Board to delay the work until the ratepayers had an opportunity of studying the scheme. What he wanted to see, for the sake of the Heathcote residents, was, that the Board should be asked to delay going on with any part of the drainage scheme until the ratepayers had expressed their approval or disapproval of the scheme. After what had fallen from Mr Nathan as regarded the remarks made by Mr Hobbs at the Mayoral dinner, he of course withdrew what he had said, and could only say he had been misinformed. Mr Fisher said he had been asked to move the resolution by a part of the district which had suffered for years from the drain running through it. He did not wonder, when they found that the evil was to be perpetuated, that the Heathcote people rose up against it. But he felt sure that the Woolston people would not like to cause a split iu the camp, and he would therefore propoje an amendment to the following effect We. the undersigned ratepayers, inhabitants of the Christchurch drainage district, being satisfied that the members of the Christchurch Drainage Board intend to proceed with Mr Garruthers’ drainage scheme, in direct opposition to the expressed wish of the public, and without allowing the ratepayers an opportunity of fully and carefully considering the whole question of drainage, respectfully request the members of the Drainage Board to postpone the initiation of any portion of the scheme for three months.” Ho would ask leave to withdraw his resolution in favor of the one now read.

Leave having been giyep to withdraw the motion,

Mr Hopkins seconded the resolution pro fonna, He desired to point out that in the Heathcote district there were a number of persons who had delayed coming into the district until this matter was settled. The Heatucote district not only did not rank with Christchurch as to th,e amount of injury likely to accrue from, the carrying out of this scheme. He and, others had considered the answer cent to. them most unsatisfactory, and he desired to call the attention of th,e meeting to the fact that at the end of their answer the Board distinctly statea that they did not intend to delay. He agreed with Mr Fisher that the Board bad exceeded their powers. They had been put into a little power, and they assumed a great deal. He questioned very much whether it was ever implied that the Board should be a sewage Board. If they carried out arterial drainage, the suburban districts woulfi not object. They were, however, determined to resist to the uttermost any attempt to throw on to the Heathcote district or into the river any of the sewage of Christchurch. He was quite prepared to accept the resolution, but he wanted to call the attention of the meeting to the fact that

the Board had told them most distinctly that they would not delay the work. Mr Bishop wanted to suggest that the Lime should not be fixed. If the plans were got out in a few days there was no reason for three months’ delay. If they recollected the fearful state of Phillipstown last winter, they would see that no longer delay should be made than was absolutely necessary. He thought that they should only put a reasonable time after the circulation of the plans. Dr Frankish said it was due to the profession of which he was a member to state that Christchurch was as healthy as Brighton, the queen of watering places. He had seen a comparative statement of the health of the towns in England divided into three sections, and he found that Christchurch stood as being healthy. The fact was that Christchurch was in a very healthy state. He had felt it necessary to state this to refute any imputation which might be made that the members of his profession were opposing this scheme from interested motives.

Mr Nairn suggested that a deputation should be appointed to wait upon the Board and present the petition. Mr Cass suggested the insertion of the words—“ or until such shorter time as may be decided upon by the public” after the words “three months.” There was no doubt about it in his mind that the Board had attempted to ride over the ratepayers, and that they had snubbed a very respectable deputation. They might even snub that meeting. What he wanted to see done was that this should go forward as a resolution only, not as a petition. If the answer to the resolution was not satisfactory, then they might circulate a petition, which he felt would be largely signed, requesting the Board to resign.

Mr Williams suggested that all present should sign the resolution as proposed, and it should b® forwarded by the chairman to the Drainage Board as from that meeting. Mr Nathan could hardly agree with the remarks of Mr Williams. The meeting was not one convened publicly. He, and others also he supposed, was present by invitation. What they must do was to get the great body of the ratepayers to sign the petition. If they got a large number to sign that petition, the Drainage Board could not ignore the fact that a large section of the public were opposed to the scheme. If they only seat a resolution from that meeting the Board might say that it was only representing a portion of the ratepayers. Mr Casa wished to have the petition put as a resolution from that meeting. After some discussion, it was resolved to add the following words to the resolution, after the words, “ three months ’’ “ or until a sufficient time has eiapsed for the expression of an opinion by the ratepayers after the cir culation of the lithographed plans.” It was also decided that those present should sign the petition, and that copies should be circulated throughout the district for signature. The resolution was then signed by those present.

Mr E. Bishop moved—“ That the petition now signed be presented by the chairman of the meeting to the chairman of the Drainage Board at his earliest convenience.”

Mr Cass seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.

Mr Treadwell wished to move a resolution to the effect that the Drainage Board be informed that similar petitions were being circulated for signature in the district.

The chairman said that no resolution was necessary. He would take it as an instruction to inform the Board of this.

Dr Symes moved— *• That this meeting requests the deputation appointed at the recent public meeting to carry on their work.”

Mr Bamford seconded the motion pro Jorma,

Messrs Bishop and Nathan thought that the deputation had fulfilled its mission.

Dr Turnbull said that it was the intention of the deputation to consider the plana when lithographed, and then submit the matter to the public again for their consideration with the light then given by the plans. He thought Dr Symes’a resolution was one which most properly could come from that meeting,

Mr Hopkins thought that the deputation would clash somewhat with the objects of that meeting. After some discussion the motion was put and carried unanimously. The Weolston committee, with one or two additions, were appointed to get the petitions signed throughout the drainage district.

A vote of thanks by acclamation was carried to the chairman, and the meeting dispersed.