The Globe. MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1251, 11 March 1878, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1878.

Mk. Bray’s letter to our contemporary the .Press is a most peculiar production. It is, we presume, intended as a defence of the action taken by the writer in connection with Mr. Clark's scheme of drainage. This, at the interview between a deputation and the Drainage Board, was pretty plainly spoken of, and now Mr. Bray is heard in reply. After having carefully considered the letter referred to, we are still at a loss to understand the reason for Mr. Bray’s action. So far as the Board themselves know. Mr. Clark has not yet stated what his intended plans are. The members of the Drainage Board were very precise upon this point, and emphatically stated that neither officially nor, otherwise had Mr. Clark made known the direction this report would take. Why Mr. Bray, therefore, who, with all due deference, must in this case bo considered an outsider, should he selected as' the chosen confidant of Mr. Clark, whilst the body employing him were kept in the dark, appears to ns to be somewhat strange. But the nature of this confidence, when viewed in the light of the statements of the acting chairman, becomes still more strange. The Board, we learn, have gone to the trouble of collating all the letters, reports of public meetings, and indeed everything that has appeared in the public papers on the subject of drainage. These have all been laid before Mr, Clark for his information, as likely to give him some indication of the bent of the mind of the public on the subject. Now, if there is one thing which, throughout the whole of those extracts is condemned in the most unmeasured terms, it is the water-closet system. One of the main features of the opposition to Mr. Carruthers’ scheme was upon this point, and throughout the correspondence, the public meetings, and the articles in the local journals, this is the great object of condemnation. Yet, with this before him, knowing as he must full well the opinion of the public on the matter, we are asked to believe, on mere conjecture, that Mr. Clark’s scheme included a water-closet system. More than this, the Board has again and again, and positively and distinctly stated that it would not allow the dejecta to bo sent down the sowers. This also—though leaving Mr. Clark unfettered—that gentleman must have gathered from the information before him. Mr. Bray, after contending as he did in his now celebrated memo, that the Board lias exceeded its powers, goes on to explain how it was that he came to go to the City Council with this information. The most remarkable portion of this is the dread of publicity which seems to afflict Mr. Bray. He goes to a body with information on a subject of the greatest possible interest to the ratepayers, criticising the public acts of another body, and yet lie considers the publication of anything about it “ unwarranted.” If Mr. Bray’s conjectures were correct, aij(J Mr. Clark intended to include a system in his scheme repugnant to the wishes of the majority of the ratepayers, there was no reason why the greatest possible publicity should not he given to it. It was for the benefit of all. and therefore the wider the information was diffused the hotter. It would, of course, be different in a case where professional pique was manifest; bnt here, where solo desire was to serve the ratepayers, there could bo no possible reason for having it kept as private as Mr. Bray seems to have wished. If the memo, had not been published, or at least a precis of it, we are at a loss to see how the deputation could have explained their presence to the Board. To have mistily referred to a memorandum which might have been read by any one would scarcely have justified them in going to the Board and asserting what Mr. Clark’s intentions were. The Board naturally would have required to know the source of their information. and thus Mr. Bray’s laudable desire to imitate those who

do good by elcalLb And blubh to liad it tame, Would Lave been frustrated. It seems a pity that the whole of the memorandum >vas not put before the public, so that the reasons of tho writer might have been fairly and fully stated. Certainly Mr. Bray’s letter contains no cogent reason why it should not. Nor will the reader, after perusing it, arrive at any idea upon what basis Mr. Bray founded Ids opinion as to what Mr. Clark’s report would be. That, after all, is tho main question, but it is* one of which Mr. Bray steers remarkably clear. As to the action of tho deputation we admit that, with the positive assertion of Mr. Bray before them, they only did their duty in bringing tho matter before the Drainage Board, and i» eliciting the information which they did £rom to iwtow*