THE DRAINAGE BOARD.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2247, 11 May 1881, Page 4

THE DRAINAGE BOARD.

TO THE BDITOB 0* THB FBB3B. Sib, —The ratepayers of Ohriatohuroh and the Burrounding districts will, I hope, accept the suggestion contained in your valuable article in your paper of Monday. It has been a grievous thing to mo to witness their singular apathy in reference to the action of the Drainage Board, beoanse wherever you turn it is almost the one topic of conversation, and yet nobody seems to have courage enough to grapple with them. It is too serious a matter to be passed over lightly, because there is involved in the proceedings of the Board breaoh of faith, breach of compact, and to some sections of the district questionable) honesty. Your readers cannot have forgotten the contest between the ratepayers and the Board in reference to the attempt to introduce a Bill into Parliament asking for powers of a most extravagant and arbitrary character. It was only twelve short months ago. They will also remember how the Board was then defeated, and that— to any other Board, at least —the most satisfactory evidence was given as to the opinion of the majority of the ratepayers upon this question. A petition to Parliament against the second reading of the proposed Bill, signed by about 2500 ratepayers, was ready for presentation. The Board was aware of this, and were privately informed as to the inevitable fate of their Bill; but they made a virtue of necessity and withdrew it. They boasted of their willingness to consult the wishes of the ratepayers. Mr Harman went so far as to say in his letter of the 6th May, 1880, " That if it is made clear to them (the Board) that a majority of the ratepayers objeot to nightsoil being allowed to be put into the sewers, the Board will abandon their application to be allowed either to compel or to permit connections for this purpose." And in the Board's own manifesto of the 17th May, last year, they say, " they are quite willing so to modify the provisions of the Bill as to leave it to the inhabitants themselves to oonneot the water closets with the sewers at their option"; but the Board either then or since have not taken steps to revise their Bill so as to show even a disposition to adapt it to the requirements of their constituents. They withdrew the first Bill for the reasons shown, and have now (I had almost said the audacity), but let me say the assurance to propose to introduce practically the same Bill to Parliament seeking for the same compulsory powers, and abuve all, seeking for powers to enforce the adoption of the water oloset system, and to carry the excreta through their pumping station to the Sandhills. The dissent of 2500 ratepayers last year is now to be disoussed. If they were satisfied twelve months ago that public opinion was against them, we may fairly ask what new feature has arisen in the controversy to justify their action. Perhaps the Board think to steal a march upon the ratepayers by reason of their too well known apathy—perhaps the Board think that by continued perseverance they can orerride the patience of the sentinels, they may catch them asleep and undermine the fortress. No ! No, ratepayers, you have already deolared in the most positive terms that you will not have a system of drainage forced upon you which you have said is infinitely beyond the necessities of the time, and I am sure you will not now permit them to remove your household exoreta by means of these drains, and ultimately to throw this refined filth broadcast upon your Sandhillß, and from this hot-bed of disease poison yourselves and your children. I cannot help asking, why are we subjeoted to a repetition of this annoyance ? It it that having completed or nearly their pumping station contraot, and the construction of the main drain leading thereto, the Board entertain a dislike to be thwarted in their work, and are determined at all oost to complete it. Bomemjer that new loans will be required for the purpose, that further loans mean additional taxation. Perhaps you will agree with me that we have taxes enough and more than enougb to endure already —that this refined luxury, so ardently longed for by a few, if it be a necessity at all, oan afford to wait for another twenty-five years or so, and then the next generation can have a voice in the matter. Meanwhile let it alone, and be sure, this time, that we compel the Board to understand that wo are in earnest, that this trifling with our opinions is an insult to our understanding. The deep drains already made possibly may not oave in,"the arrangements for the pumping station may be utilised for some other purpose, but we positively refuse to allow the Board, if our protest in Parliament be worth anything, to ask for these great powers, even if it result in their resignation—a most lamentable result surely! I think I have so far shown that the Board have been guilty of a breach of faith. I would say one word to the ratepayers of the Heathoote, the Avon, the Biocarton, and the Spreydon districts, and the outlying districts of the city. I wish to ask if they are content with the following decision of the Drainage Board—if they consider it honest after the compact of the past. It was resolved at the last meeting of the Board—- " That the construction of the main outfall drain from the Bast belt to the pumping station, and all other main drain.", pumping stations, &c. (see what U looming in the distance), is for the benefit of each and every portion of the drainage district, and that onii bate should be struok over the whole district to pay interest and sinking fund on the cost of these particular drains, pumping stations, &o " And bear in mind this resolution has been adopted. From the earliest period of this contest, you will remember, we have contended against the casting of water closet excreta in any form, either upon the Sandhills or in the Estuary. Our objections were said to be idiotic. Possibly so. " Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise." But what says modern tcienee ? Lat me quote the concluding portion of that most admirable lecture on the principles of physiology delivered only o few days ago by Profeisor Hutton : Speaking from a biological point of view, and so not interfering with the functions of medical men. it might be pointed out that these fnngi must, for their increase, b 9 in a fluid. When dry, they no more increased ; but they could remain in that state for a very long period—for years, at any rate, and they were then capable of again growing as rapidly as ever. In this dry state, the wind blew them everywhere. Now, of the known means for destroying them, we certainly could not adopt the practice of boiling on a sufficiently extensive scale; but we had one perfect anti-septic which was abundant —the sea water, close to us. None of these fangi conld live for any length of time in salt water, the great purifier, the great anti-septio. But if we took all oar refuse on to the Sandhills, though the sand would deprive the ga«es of their noxious properties, rendering thnm inodorous, it could not destroy the germß, which would dry up, and the east wind, which now brought us health, would in the course of time, it was greatly to be feared, waft to us clouds of disease

spores. The lecturer was confident that so long aa we thought to get rid of the germs by pouring our refuse on to the Sandhills, so long we were under a mistake. And the lecturer proceeded to recommend the removal of the excreta to the deep sea—say, for example, to New Brighton—where the beach shelves almost immediately into deep water. It has been said in tho multitude of dootora there is wisdom. Certainly there is no uniformity. You will, 1 perhaps, remember that at a public meeting held in Christohurch twelve months ago, I read to you several important extracts from a very interesting paper on the "Sewerage of towns," by Mr Thompson, formerly Chief Surveyor of New Zealand, and these showed that in some of the largest towns in England the oarth closet was being resortod to in preference to the sewage farms, or, indeed to any other system; that sewage farms under the most advantageous circumstances of maintenance were a failure. Now we have another advocate for fame in the presence of Dr. Bakewell, of Hokitika, and he arrays himself in the strongest possible manner against Professor Hutton. The learned doctor takes objection to the remarks made upon this leoture by your oontemporary the " Lyttelton Times," and says :—" If you had stated that the science " (biology, I suppose), "is still in its infancy, your statement would have been more accurate, and any man who is a worker in science knows that a science still in its infancy is not one on which any man is ' entitled to pronounce a verdict.' " It is not Professor Hutton who pronounces tho verdict, the professor is really the mouthpiece of the most eminent biologists of the age—men whose opinions, I suppose, Dr Bakewell cannot afford to despise. The doctor has a great down upon the Professor, apparently for no other reason than that he was " a few years ago a captain in H.M. regiment of infantry " —frightful immorality, oertainly, for any man to give proof_ to the world that he has possibly mistaken his vocation, and that the result of earnest study and application has succeeded in obtaining at the hands of the magnates of the Canterbury University one of its most eminent chairs. Let us see how far Dr Bakewell fairly judges the Professor. He may differ with all the professors of biology on earth as to the " germ theory," and after all we know not so much of tho doctor as we probablv do of the learned men quoted by Professor Hutton, and may not choose, therefore, to accept his dictum for our guidance, but he says:— "Practically the disposal of sewage on Sandhills, when the area of distribution is sufficiently largo to allow the decomposition of one supply before another is put on the soil, is not only a cheap, but an effeotual and innoxious way of getting rid of sewage. _ It has, besides, the immense advantage of utilising and converting into food a produot which being poured into the sea would becomo useless. It is economical, it changes a sandy waste into fertile fiolds, and it follows Nature in her way of disinfection." Well, we can let the Professor speak, as he has spoken for himself, and we prefer the Professor. I have, however, one more remark to make in referenco to the dootor's advocacy for the disposal of sewage on the Sandhills, and that is to ask you to turn back to the opinion of a practical agriculturist who has recently been lecturing among us. I mean Mr Bowron. What did he say in his leoture upon cheese and butter making delivered before the members of the Agricultural and Pastoral Sooiety ? He told them, in very plain terms —as the result of large personal experience—that pasturage raised by means of these liquid manures, for purposes are valueless ; nay, worse, the milk is scaroely fit for family use. If this is not a convincing proof, what is ? It is oertainly more reliable than the science of Dr. Bakewell, and singularly adapted to our requirements. Finally, if you do not intend this corruption to grow up in our midßt, remember, you must at onoe go to work again to prevent the Drainage Board introducing their Bill, and you must ask your representatives to oppose the Bill in every stage. Yours, &c, J. OTuMVIBB.