THE GLOBE. MONDAY, MAY 2, 1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1931, 3 May 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. MONDAY, MAY 2, 1880.

The Drainage Board lias now before it pretty clearly the grounds upon which, a vote of want of confidence has been arrived at by the ratepayers, and it will be for tho members to consider what course they will adopt under tho circumstances. The main point seems to be that the Board having entered into a compact with the ratepayers has, without consultation with them or a reconsideration of the position, proceoded to take steps to carry out what it agreed it would not do. Whenever the members of the Board were spoken to as to solid sewage going into the drains, there was immediately an emphatic statement that it would not be all}wed. This their own manifesto issued to the ratepayers distinctly asseH el. The members of tho Board felt that it was incumbent on them to set tho mind of the ratepayers at rest on this very important subject, and they did so by assuring them that there was no foundation for such an impression as had gained ground. So far so good. But what in

reality have the' Board done? A little over two years ago the mere mention of using the drains for the conveyance of solid matter, called forth, on the part of the Board, an indignant denial Now, and without consulting their constituents, to whom they were pledged to carry out a certain course, they seek to obtain legislative powers to enable them to carry out a system diametrically opposed to the above. It has been attempted to make capital out of the alleged fact, that the Board do not intend to drain the sewage into the rivers, and " intercepting drains " are spoken of at some length. But really this question of river pollution is beside the question. It may be, and perhaps is, perfoctly true that the Board are not draining, and do not intend to drain the solid sewage into the river. But that is not the charge made against them. They are accused of having broken a compact entered into between the ratepayers and themselves, on the strength of whi«h compact they were allowed to proceed to carry out the drainage scheme. The issue put before them to answor is plain enough. Have they stood by the implied compact or have they not ? As to their non-appearance as a body at the public meeting, we altogether hold with our contemporary, the '• Lytteltou Times." A public meeting is not the place where the administrative acts of a public body can be answered by that body itself. Unless members are endowed with an unusual amount of eloquence they would find it quite impossible to turn the foregone conclusions arrived at by most of the attendant ratepayers. But the ways of enlightening the public are not confined to public utterances before a hostile audience. The Board might well have summoned a meeting themsolves in order to lay the whole matter fully before it, and in that case the attitude of such audience would be distinctly different to that of last week. Or the Board might have taken other methods of enlightening the public and of gaining a clear insight into the popular will. The gravamen of the accusation against the Board is that they have broken faith with the ratepayers, aud have endeavored to introduce measures sub rosa, which, had they taken the trouble to sound the public, they would instantly have found to be utterly distasteful. It is true the members of the Board are elected for a somewhat lengthened period. That is almost imperative, because it would be impossible to carry on the operations of a scheme like the one now in hand with anything like continuity when the body having its control is to be changing every twelve months. However the term of office does not any the less remove from the members the responsibility of enlightening their constituents, and of affording them an opportunity of expressing their opinions. The Board might well have called their constituents together, and laid before them the facts of the case. They might have told them that experience had convinced them that the main conditions of the compact entered into would, in their opinion, be better altered. The constituencies could then either have requested them to carry on the scheme, absolving them from the compact entered into, or have refused to endorse their proposals. But the members of the Board have to a certain extent treated the ratepayers throughout as though they had no concorn or interest in tho matter, placing ithemsolves in thej position of dictators rather than representatives. This, we fear, has led to the present complication, because, had the members of the Board taken up their proper position, and consulted the ratepayers, when they determined to change their plan, the latter would at once have pronounced their opinion. The fact that the Board distinctly promised not to allow the solid sewage to go into the drains cannot be disputed, and, as we have said, the departure from this is the main ground of the withdrawal by the ratepayers of their confidence from the Board. We trust that the Board will not treat the resolution of the meeting lightly. Is was a most earnest meeting, and one more or less fully representing the ratepayers. The statements made were characterised by moderation, and though hard things were now and then said, the Board have to a certain extent themselves to blame for it.

As to the side questions of Wadey's contract and the drain pipe matter, these are not of largo importance, as is the bringing of the solid sewage into the drains. The former is the question we hope the Board will answer, and that they will put before the ratepayers clearly and unmistakeably the reasons which have led them to adopt this idea after being so strongly pledged to the opposite course. There is just one more word to add, and that is to express the thanks of the public to the veteran orator, Mr. Ollivier, for the able and temperate manner in which he has brought this subjeefc forward. Had he rendered no other service to the public, he would have been entitled to their warmest thanks. But as all know he has never been wanting when public interests demanded an advocate, and on this important occasion he has rendered yeoman's service. We do trust, in conclusion, that the Board will lay aside any absurd ideas of dignity, and will give to their constituents what they have a right to expect, namely, an explanation of their line of action, and their views as to their future policy.