THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1881. THE DRAINAGE BOARD DEADLOCK.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2259, 25 May 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1881. THE DRAINAGE BOARD DEADLOCK.

In continuation o£ our remarks upon the subject of the present position of the Drainage Board, we would desire to call the attention of our readers to another point. As we take it, the position of affairs simply amounts to this, that the representatives of certain country and suburban portions of the Drainage district decline to he far more heavily rated than Christchurch. We think that the majority of people, whether raiepayers of the city or suburbs, will agree that this is a reasonable and proper position to take up. As we pointed out in a former article, the proposition of Mr. Hobbs simply meant this, that these district s were to pay tht ongh the nose. Ho w, then, could Mr. Hobbs hope to successfully throw dust in their eyes to such an extent as to get them to fall in with this proposal ? Of course, the ratepayers in the outside portions of the district at once put their bach up, and all the carefully prepared schemes of Mr. Hobbs fell like a house of cards to the ground. We are sorry for him, tho more so as he has avowed iconoclastic tendencies. Whether he thoroughly understands the full moaning of the word or not we do not know, but there can be no doubt of this, that the rejection of his pet scheme has rather shaken that calm self-possession which the honorable member for the North-east part of the district is so remarkable for. Now that reconstruction seems to be the order of tho day, no better basis or more equitable one appears to have bean proposed than that contained in tho letter of the chairman of the Board. His proposal is that the district comprised within the scheme of Mr Clark shall pay the cost of the works. That simply means this—those who reap the benefit shall pay the piper. No one can object to this, because it has both fairness and equity in it. Not that the suburban districts are to go scot free. That is not how wo road Mr Harman’s proposal. What we take it will be the practical outcome of this is the scheme to which we referred in a former article. That is, tho formation of three classes of districts, city, suburban, and country. The former, as directly and at present reaping the advantage of the scheme, would now ho called upon to pay the largest share towards providing tho interest and sinking fund on the cost of the works. In the second category would be placed, those districts which, though now only reaping a small portion of advantage, yet in tho future will participate equally with the city. Then we come to the last portion of tho district, which, being remotely interested, cannot be expected to contribute much. Thus, by establishing a sliding scale, the Board would deal justly and fairly with all parts, not taxing one for the advantage of another. The proposal contained in Mr, Harman’s letter seemed to meet with the approval of tho members and, if brought forward, shonld solve tho present difficulties, always remembering tho iconoclastic tendeEciea of Mr Hobbs. If this is done, and Mr. Harman proposes a scheme in accordance with this view, we trust he will include some such method of dealing with the various parts of the district as we have suggested. We should, were this adopted, hear no more of attempts on the part of members to get all they could for their particular district at the expense of tho other, but the whole would work together smoothly.