DRAINAGE.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 937, 26 June 1877, Page 3

DRAINAGE.

To the Editor of the Glove. Sir—The mania for amateur drainage, which apparently possesses two at least of ; our local bodies, appears to be carried on with an utter disregard of the private rights of individuals, as evidenced in your issue of 19th inst. Mrs J. Dickey very reasonably complains that a drain has been cut through her property without her permission, and evidently without her having received any compensation for the damage inflicted. This drain appears to have been left open, so that she loses a certain portion ff her property, amounting to 398 square feet. If the drain had been but one foot longer, the space of cround takenj.vould have been siifficiettt for a house of twenty feet square to have been erected thereon. —if the land were worth only £llOO per acre the portion taken would be worth £lO. This is estimating the inconvenience, future annoyances, and the decreased value of the remaining land at nothing. If there are children, which doubtless there are in the houses in the section, it will be necessary for safety to fence in this drain, which is four feet wide and one and a half chain in length, and a bridge of some kind will have to be erected. Now let us see what advantages accrue to Mrs Dickey from this action of the City Council. She has been ih-prived of land of the value of ten pounds, more or less, her remaining property is deteriorated in value. She will have to incur the expense of fencing, and she will be called upon to contribute towards paying for this little amusement when the rate collector calls, and not at all unlikely when the hot weather comes on, and the drain becomes offensive, another of these Boards will give her notice to clear out the drain or to cover it in.

Again, this action of the City Council in the matter of the Barnards, was arbitary and oppressive, and unworthy of a respectable body. Why lay six' informations when one would hav« sufficed <o decide the case ? '• Oh, man clothed in alittlc brief authority." It was with general satisfaction that the public heard that this petty spite had been made to recoil upon their own heads by the decision of the Resident Magistrate. Is it really possible, Mr Editor, that an irresponsible body such as the City;Council, have the power io make bye-laws which shall in effect do away with the right of private property, and that they can legally enter upon and occupy what portions of private property may seem lit to them, for drains or other work, without paying a fair compensation ? When land is required by the Govern-ment-for railroad or other purposes a fair value is always paid to the owner for the land so taken, as well as for any deterioration accruing to the remainder. If this is law in one instance why not in another F Can the mere bye laws of an irresponsible body of men overrule justice? If so, then the sooner their powers are rescinded the better. It is remarkable that when certain persons get upon "drainage" they entirely lose themselves. It was found necessary, from the maimer in which the Drainage Board were using the powers delegated to them, to take steps to £>ct those powers considerably curtailed ; and now something will have to be done and speedily too, to limit the apparent powers of the City Council to enter upon and aud possess themselves of private property. More anon. Yours, &c., FAIR PLAY.