RATEPAYERS' REFORM ASSOCIATION.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 883, 24 April 1877, Page 3

RATEPAYERS' REFORM ASSOCIATION.

A meeting, convened by his Worship the Mayor to consider a scheme of drainage, dock, canal, and reclamation, was held last evening in the Oddfellows' Hall. The scheme was submitted by the Ratepayers'Reform Association, and the meeting took place in compliance with a requisition presented to his Worship, signed by a number of ratepayers. There was a fair attendance at eight o'clock, when the meeting commenced. His Worship the Mayor took the chair, and briefly explained the objects of the meeting. Having done so, lie requested Mr B. Cass to give those present an idea of the proposed scheme. Mr Cass said he desired to move the following resolution:—"That this meeting thinks that the underground system of drainage is unnecessary, expensive, and dangerous to the public health, and that a system of surface concrete channel drainage is all that is required to drain the whole district. Also, that the Drainage Board shall have plans, estimates, &c, prepared for the ratepayers." He desired to make a few general remarks before speaking to the resolution. No doubt many of them had read the Globe, the editor of which had sought to heap ridicule upon those who were trying in a manly way to bring before the ratepayers something for their good. The editor of the Globe had asked the question " Who are the Ratepayers' Association ?" The editor then proceeds to answer that question himself, saying that it only comprised two or three. Now the Association numbered some hundred members—[A Voice : ' ; Can you name them."J He might tell them that the class of members of the Association mainly consisted of tradesmen, who were the most practical. Mr Cass then proceeded to refer to the articles in the tilobeoi Friday and last evening. He then went on to say that he had been told that Mr Carruthers' scheme would fill ten sheets, which would bo charged at Is per sheet, so that any one who wanted to see the plans would have to pay 10s. He considered as Mr Hobbs, one of the members of the Board, had said that they did not intend to carry out Mr Carruthers' scheme if the ratepayers were against it, that they were perfectly justified in bringing forward another plan. He contended that the Drainage Board had boen inconsistent alike from not calling for competitive designs, and also for having made a second survey of the levels of the city, which were identical with the first, and thus so much money was wasted. In March last Mr Flockton had written to one of the morning papers pointing out the inconsistencies of the Drainage Board. W hat they wanted was to get the best scheme of drainage at the minimum of cost, and therefore they could hare any number of competitive plans. They were of opinion that no deep system of 'underground drainage Mas necessary. They did not object to short runs, but did to an'elaborate and costly system. If the drainage were on the surface, it was far more easily cleaned and flushed than an underground one. In the colonies as well as England, underground drains had been condemned as useless and detrimental to health, besides being excessive in cost. If Mr Carruthers' scheme was carried out they would be taxed to a large extent to carry out a system which had become antiquated. Besides this, a great deal of the drainage would have to be taken through quicksands, the cost of which no one could tell. They must recollect the great cost which would attend the underground scheme, the pumping stations, wear and tear, &c, whilst the system of surface drainage would, whilst being far more effective, be very economical in its cost. The scheme they proposed comprised the drainage of the whole city, the reclamation of the estuary, some 400 acres', and the utilisation of the Canal Reserve. This latter was the project of the General Government, and it was the opinion of many that this was the right thing in the right place. The real fact was that there were interests at work which it became their duty to watch. It was owing to these interests that the hall was not filled that night and the platform crowded with gentlemen of the opposition. The scheme- -which would be elaborately explained by Mr Treadwell—would be the making of the city ; and surely they ought not to grudge the same sum they proposed to pay for a scheme confessedly a wrong one. This was the proper time for their plan to be brought out, so that all the ratepayers might have an opportunity of comparing it with Mr Carruthers'. [Cheers.] Mr Treadwell seconded the motion in the absence of Mr Andrews. That gentleman had promised to be there that evening to second the motion. They had received no apology from that gentleman, and were at a loss to understand why he had failed them. He (Mr Andrews) had gone over the plans with him, and had thoroughly agreed with the plans. If therefore he had now deserted them it was a shame.

Mr Tread well then proceeded to explain the levels of the plan on the wall, contending that the whole district coidd be drained easily by means of siu-face drainage. Connected with this was a reservoir, which would be emptied twice a day into the ebb tide, so as to do away with the effluvia caused by M l ' Carruthers' scheme of putting the sewage on the mud flats. "VYith tho reservoir they would get lift fall over the district; hence they might throw away Mr Carruthers' plan. As to deodorising seAvage, the secret of doing this had been given to their association, and they intended to try and introduce it into Christchurch. He (Mr Treadwell) was now about to tear Mr Carruthers' plans to pieces, and he intended to do so out of his own mouth. Mr Carruthers had said that it would be necessary to go to some depth for his underground drains, but it seemed to him that he had only surveyed the surface and not the subsoil, which it was well known offered considerable difficulty to putting drainage pipes at any depth. What he (Mr Treadwell) had demonstrated was that the drainage could be got without going down under the ground, and that it could be done without polluting' the estuary. Let them think for a moment of little nine-inch pipes being laid under the sti-ects to carry away the whole of the storm water, &c. Besides this, the flushing power would be but small. The Drainage Board he might say had adopted Mr Carruthers' plans, although one of the paragraphs of Mr Carruthers' report stated that he had not yet prepared the estimates. The plans provided for an expensive svstcin of pumping, when it had been proved that there was a fall of fourteen feet in three miles. [Mr Treadwell then proceeded to make some remarks as to the articles appearing in the Globe recently, stating that the names of twelve committeemen had been shown to tbe editor of that journal.] He asked them, after the facts lie had placed before them, to vote unanimously for the resolution. Tim motion was then put and carried, with one dissentient,

Mr Treadwell rose to propose the next resolution us follows—" That as the sewage must be carried to the sea, and in order to effect this 2000 acres of the estuary shall be reclaimed, and also that the excavated material from the dock and canal is required to effect this reclamation, this meeting requests the Drainage Board to have prepared, by public competition, designs, plans, and estimates of the canal, dock, drainage, and reclamation, or any suitable modification of the same." Mr Treadwell then proceeded to condemn what he called tyrannical, illegal, and ruinous action of the Drainage Board. The Ratepayers' Association had not been of such slight use as might have been expected, as they had expended £2O in their researches for the benefit of the ratepayers. By the reclamation scheme they would recover 2000 acres of land. They would take the earth from the canal, and also the sandhills, which would be sufficient to do what they wanted. They had a canal reserve which would not require to be bought. The dock they proposed to place on the reclaimed land connecting it with the railway system, and thus ensuring the goods coming up to Christchurch. The commercial effect of the scheme on Christchurch would be very great, as they could see for themselves, lie would now place before them the estimates of the scheme as follows— Locks, say 6 at £3OOO, £18,000; bar and shelter, £10,000; extras, £18,000; total, £150,710; concrete channels and sewers, £50,000; reservoir and pumping station, if wanted, £50.000, £IOO,OOO ; rail connection to be made by colonv ; refund to Christchurch drainage expenditure,£6o,ooo ; total £310,710; The revenue account would stand as follows — Expenditure, 6 per cent on £250,000, £15,000; G per cent on £60,000, £3600 ; total, £18,600; The receipts on the other side were—Dock nett, £3OOO ; 8800 yards frontage, canal, 7s 6d per yard, £3300; ground rent of intake, about 15,810 yards by half-mile average depth, 30s, £23,760; total, £30,060. The canal and towage profits are left to meet repair and channel sweeping, &o. Contrasting the two schemes they would see that they proposed one which would yield a profit at low cost, as contrasted with large cost and no return whatever. He now begged to move the resolution. Mr Toomer seconded the resolution, and said that ignorance and cheek was his motto. He was one of those fools who " rushed in where angels feared to tread." His Worship told him ho must stick to the drainage question, but his trade was a shoemaker. Let them bring him a bundle of calfskins and he could tell them what they were, but he knew nothing of drainage. His motto was to stick to his last. He had much pleasure in seconding the resolution. Mr Cooper supported the resolution. The resolution was then put and agreed to, with two dissentients.

Mr Walkdon asked whether there was to be any wall round the dock, or whether it was simply to be a bole in the ground ? Mr Treadwell said they did not want the public to accept the clock until the practical engineers had given their opinion upon it. They would hare ample surplus to make the wall of the dock if necessary.

Mr Cass moved —" That a copy of the resolutions passed be sent to tho Drainage Board, and that the chairman and secretary of the Ratepayers' Reform Association wait upon the Board as a deputation to present them." Mr Treadwell seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. A vote of thanks to the chairman coneluded the business.