The Globe. SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1281, 27 April 1878, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1878.

The loiter from Mr. Camithers which appeared in yesterday’s issue, deserves some notice. It is a defence of his systtan of drainage as compared with that submitted by Mr. Clark. The writer begins by stating that the main difference between the two schemes is, that Mr. Clark j proposes to exclude the rain water from | the sewers, and pump everything whielt i is allowed to enter them on to the Sand- j hills. Mr. Carmthers proposes to admit- j tho rainfall, and to allow the whole con- j tents of the eowere, includin'! the sev:age u

to flow to the estuary for some years. A great portion of the letter is then devoted to discussing the question of the propriety of excluding the rainfall from the sewers. In laying so much stress upon the question it appears to ns that Mr. Carruthers overlooks the essential difference between the two plans. Ho proposes to throw our sewage into the Estuary; Mr. Clark strongly condemns such a course. Nor will the people of Christchurch over submit to have the drainage of the city left to poison the air in such a manner. At whatever cost, that result must bo avoided. Therefore, any scheme which contemplates such a moans of getting rid of the sewage, however excellent from an engineering point of view, cannot possibly bo accepted by the Board. The greater portion of Mr. Carruthers'a letter is, therefore, entirely beside the question, and might just as well never have boon written. Had Mr. Clark proposed to send the sewage to the Estuary, perhaps he would also hare admitted the rainfall into his sewers. But that course being rejected, ho had to decide the question whether it would he advantageous or otherwise to admit the rainfall when it had all to he pnmpod np again. Had Mr, Carruthers joined issue with him on this point, wo could have understood him. But ho does nothing of the kind. It is true he commences his letter with a statement of the difference between the two schemes, hut he makes no attempt whatever, in the rest of his communication, to show that Mr. Clark is wrong in condemning the plan of polluting the Estuary with the sewage of the city. But surely the first point to ho decided is, what is to he done with our drainage. When that is settled it will bo time enough to discuss the means to secure that object. To our mind Mr. Carruthers thinks more of the means than of the end. But while ho is simply wasting his energies in comparing his scheme with Mr. Clark’s, when the two plans aim at accomplishing entirely different ends, his critical remarks upon the scheme of his rival may bo worthy of attention. In tho first place, ho says it will ultimately ha much more expensive than his plan, which, if adopted, would cause an immediate expenditure of £12,000 more than Mr. Clark’s, and at some future day, say in twenty years, a further expenditure of £21,450 for pumps, preparing land for irrigation, &c., hnt as the rainfall is provided for, no further expenditure will over ho required. On the other hand, Mr. Clark makes separata provision for tho rainfall w’hich will be indefinitely expensive, and ultimately result in a double set of sewers. Of course, open drains will become a nuisance if they ai’e used for the conveyance of other than pure rain-water. But care will ho taken, no doubt, that no sewage matter whatever will he allowed to enter them. Even should Mr. Clark’s plan he the most expensive, it does not follow that it should not be adopted. If economy is our chief aim we had better do nothing at all. Even Mr. Carruthers’s scheme, if carried out, would largely increase the rates, and it is open to the fatal objection, that it depends for its success upon a mode of disposing of tho sewage which will not for a moment bo entertained by the ratepayers of the district. The next objection raised is that a system of sewers which does not admit of cleansing by rain, or even by flushing, is inferior to one which does, in tho main respect of freedom from offensive gases. This is a question, of course, for engineers to settle, but we may state that Mr. Clark says ho estimates the power to flush sewers as of less importance than the means of preventing its necessity. His plan, he assures us, provides the moans of preventing such necessity. Again, Mr. Carruthers says it is objectionable, where it can be avoided, to depend entirely on pumping and be obliged to pump the subsoil water at night when there is scarcely any sewage mixed with it. This statement is no doubt quite true. But how is the i sewage to be safely disposed of except by | pumping ? It cannot he placed in the Avon, Heathcoto, or Estuary, for tho public will never permit such a step. The only practicable means at our disposal, therefore, except taking it out to sea near Now Brighton, at great cost, is to place it on the Sandhills, and how can that ho done except by pumping? But Mr. Carruthors’s main objection is that Mr. Clark’s scheme does not relieve the low-lying parts of the town from floods. “ A largo part of Christchurch,” he says, “ has no natural drainage; it was originally a swamp, and is now flooded at every heavy rain. If rain were admitted into the sewers these low-lying parts would ho relieved from this great evil, and would become as dry and healthy as the rest of tho district. It tho rain is not allowed into the sewers the Board must | make up its mind at no distant date to provide a duplicate sot for this purpose alone.” Tho opening and deepening of Jackson’s creek is proposed by Mr. Clark for the very purpose of removing rain water from the south-east quarter, and if the cutting is made deep enough it will surely be the means of carrying off the rainfall. On tho other hand, the admission of the subsoil water into the sewers will soon have tho effect of rendering that quarter of Christchurch as dry and healthy as tho most favored localities of the city. After a careful study of Mr. Carruthers’s letter, wo cannot see that ho has succeeded in raising any valid objection to Mr. Clark’s scheme, or in giviuga single reason why his own should be adopted in preference. Tho two plans aim at entirely different results, and the means to secure them must, as a matter of coarse, he also different. The public have fully made up their mind that the of the city and district shall not bo deposited in tho Estuary. Any plan, therefore, which proposes such a course, must necessarily he rejected, and, for that reason alone, the scheme of Mr. Carruthers must ho set aside.

Mr. tire Secretary of the Political Refer* A Association, has received a telegram fn® Sir G. Grey to the etfect that “ On the 13th instant an order was issued providing for overtime allowances being paid to employees on the Middle Island railways. ” We hope there is some truth in this latest apparently authentic statement of the- Premier. Wo trust however, that the railway employees wiU not ho too sanguine upon this point, as this promise may also suffer the tate oi its predecessors*