DRAINAGE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1942, 15 May 1880, Page 2

DRAINAGE.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sib, —Your Friday’s leader was really aimed at the writer who moved the resolution of noconfidence. In defence it is urged that there are three good grounds for such a motion— First, it is the parliamentary practice, and the practice of all electors towards the representatives ; second, we tried the resolution and deputation business before, and we received replies and promises, end lastly, we got Mr Clark’s scheme, which was accepted as final; third, these promises and Mr Clark’s scheme are broken. As to a manifesto from the Board, if it is to be at all like the one published by the “ Times,” I sincerely hope the Board will not disgrace itself and the papers by printing any such nngentlemanly nonsense. I did not reply to Mr Hobbs publicly for three reasons—His language shows such a want of good breeding; his statements can be nearly all disproved (t hat is the important part of them) ; and thirdly, I did not wish to break the laws of good breeding by interfering between Mr Ollivier and his unruly opponent. Then, as a burgess of Sydenham, I saw the case was so utterly different to any other pave of the district, that the remarks of Mr Ollivier, however applicable to Christchurch, did not apply. As a burgess of Christchurch I had quite another duty to perform. In each case the circumstances altered the cases. If you had been at the meeting, or had received a proper report, I don’t think you would have written that leader, but outsiders, on reading the castrated speech, of your reporter will wonder how the meeting was influenced to such action. Permit me to give you some hints that are deliberately suppressed by the reporters. I said—“ I produce the accounts ef the Board, signed by Mr Gordon ; it would be bettor if the editors of the papers had published the accounts, instead of writing leaders, then the public could really judge for themselves.” I explained the accounts thus :—“ The cash rate levied in the district is £11,702 6s 4d, but this is only part of the rate, because £3596 12s 6d is taken out of profit, and the actual rate levied this year on expenditure is £15,298 18s lOd, while Mr Clark said, in clause 70, that the total annual charge after the scheme was complete was to be only £10,450 on expenditure ; then there is the sum of £S4CO which we pay to the bondholders on £90, C00, but the Bank of New Zealand pays that at present, because it uses the money; then there is £1650 Mr Clark’s pumping expense; and then the further yearly charge of £2OOO (which Mr Clark reckoned only as £1630) ; altogether the expense would be £24,348 18s lOd, or double the present rates.” Now I ask any burgess to read the reports in the papers and see if they can make head or tail of them. Further on, “Mr Treadwell proceeded to go through the seven points.” How is it that Mr Hobbs gets three columns of the “ Times,” and any other quantity and full reports, although the public cannot accept him, while others whom the public accept are buried ? If the Globe had published Mr Murfil’a speech it would have startled all New Zealand, not this pais only, but North and South. Shortly Mr Clark ordered the Board not to carry out the piping of the whole district, but only the outfall and the arteries. Ho ordered them not to Bend Sydenham water northwards, but to send it eastwards, through its own territory, to the lowest near spot on the Heathcote, 7£t. lower than the Madras sewer. Mr Clark ordered them not to oppress the ratepayers by taking up the whole scheme, and ordered them not to use compulsion. AU these points are broken. The effect is that the Madras sewer carries the water of the most thickly populated centre of Christchurch, and has no business to be an artery of Sydenham at all. The financial effect is that we can prove in the Supreme Court £15,C00 wrongly charged to Sydenham for arteries, and pipes that we do not want, that Mr Clark has forbidden the Board to put down, and on those grounds we can submit to the Judge that he should quash, all the rates. (See the statute made and pr jvided), and save us £IOSO a year. I ask again how is it that the thousands of ratepayers who could not possibly come to the Colombo road school are refused the information which I worked so hard to get for them. I am, Sir, yonrs, &c., J. W. TREADWELL.