PUBLIC MEETING AT SYDENHAM.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2232, 28 May 1881, Page 3

PUBLIC MEETING AT SYDENHAM.

A meeting of the ratepayers of Sydenham was held last evening, in the Colombo road schoolroom, to consider the action of the Drainage Board as regards its proposals to the Borough. There was a large attendance, many being unable to gain admittance. The Mayor of Sydenham (Mr J. T. Brown) presided, and after reading the advertisement convening the meeting, briefly stated its object and the reasons therefor, asking for an expression of opinion on the question. Mr Joyce said he bad much pleasure in proposing the first resolution, as follows : “ That this meeting approves of the action taken by the Sydenham Borough Council, and by the representatives of the Borough on the Drainage Board to prevent the laying of sewage pipes within the Borough, as the system of sewers proposed by the Drainage Board is beyond the requirements and means of the district at the present time.” He had been supplied with statistics as to the proposed expenditure in the borough, and he hoped the action of the meeting would have a practical effect. He thoroughly agreed with the opinion expressed by Mr Ollivier at Fhillipstown the other evening. The Act constituting the Drainage Board said the rating should be universal, but the big merchants and others in Christchurch made Sydenham pay Hid in the £, while the district on their north paid only 7£d. He denied the statement that Sydenham wanted to be drained and Christchurch to pay for it. On. the contrary, they did not believe in paying for the drainage of Christchurch. [Hear, hear.] He then read certain statistics bearing on the subject, and concluded by moving the resolution standing in his name, suggesting that the Borough Council should wait on the Drainage Board, the members of which, if they had any honor in them, should resign, and place themselves in the hands of the ratepayers for re-election or rejection. Mr Lockwood seconded the resolution.

The Chairman then read a telegram from Mr Harman, dated from Masterton, as follows : —“ Sorry cannot attend Sydenham meeting. Drainage of house slops into side channels, if carried out, means continual pollution of rivers Avon and Heathoote, which will certainly promote opposition.” Mr George Booth thought the mover of the resolution had not been clear about the drainage. According to Mr Clark’s report, the subsoil of the whole district was a hotbed of disease and malaria. The use of chemicals was not all that was required. He thought the Board required the sympathy of the rate> payers—[Cries of “No,” and “Sit down”] — and he could not endorse the resolution without a better plan than that of the Board was shown.

Mr Joyce laid, hii answer was that as Gbristohuroh was drained by surface drainage for years, so Sydenham would hare to be drained for years to come. [Cheers.] They were willing to bear their share, but did not believe in being saddled with HJd whilst Christchurch paid 7Jd, nor yet in being saddled with: £IO,OOO for drain pipes that would be useless without a water supply. [Hear, hear.] A Ratepayer said that Dr. Powell gave it as his opinion that if the excreta was buried 2ft it would not be a nuisance to anyone. On the motion being put, it was carried with one dissentient.

Mr Andrew then proposed the following resolution“ That the population of the borough being extended over a large area, within which the holdings are generally sufficiently large to afford a means of sufficiently deodorizing the house slops; and, as it will be necessary (even if deep sewers are laid) to construct side channels of a permanent character, the meeting is of opinion that the said channels, combined with the powers of the Borough Council and the Board of Health to prevent nuisances, will be sufficient for the requirements of the borough for some years to come.” He thought that as the side channels had done for Christchurch for more than twenty years, the same system would serve for Sydenham, which had only been populated a few years. He desired to point out that the pipes would not bo laid south of Goings road. How, then, would they deal with Sandridge and Smart’s paddock, which they proposed to mulct in the sum of Hid in the £. Bast year Sydenham paid a sum to the Drainage Board equal to the interest on £29,000, and what had they received for it F The “ Lyttelton Times ” had said that Sydenham wanted to pay nothing to the Board, but he denied it. They were willing to pay the value of what they had received, and separate from them. The Drainage Board was ruled by one man—[A voice—"Hobbs.”] —who was the Drainage Board in fact, who had said he

refused to be dictated to by a small borough [Groans.] Mr W. G. Gates seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously. In answer to a question, it was stated that the cost of side channelling in Sydenham would be £20,000.

In answer to Mr Booth—Mr White said that Mr Hobbs’ proposition to rate the various districts bad been vetoed by one vote. Mr B. Pavitt moved—“ That this meeting protests against the practice of the Drainage Board of charging the cost of the pumping station, outfall sewer, materials and plant on hand, and general charges in proportion to the prospective benefit to be derived by the various districts when the sewage scheme shall have been completed ; the meeting being of opinion that it is impossible for the Board to complete the scheme with the balance of its loan yet unspent, or for the borough to derive any benefit from the same.” He thought the question had been put plainly to the meeting, and ho felt that they should separate, and that it was possible. He characterised the deep sewage scheme as a mistake, as it was originally intended that surface drainage should bo provided for, Mr Ditchings seconded the motion. Mr Gates wanted to know why they thought Sydenham so unimportant and yet wanted to rate it so heavily. Ho thought men of importance should be elected to the Board, and not men like the majority of its members.

Mr Moffatt pointed out that the present scheme was not in accordance with Mr Clark’s original proposal. He thought the thanks of the meeting were due to the Borough Council for their action in this matter, as he had heard that the Board contemplated a further loan of £IOO,OOO. He asked that they would all back up their member in his plucky action on the Board. [Cheers.] Two years ago Mr Hobbs bad the impudence to say that the ratepayers should not express their opinions, characterising himself as one of “ eight educated gentlemen,” and was making a great mistake if he thought he was going to tyrannise over Sydenham. It was a diabolical system for the nominee of a Bank to try and ride rough shod over everyone he thought be could tyrannise over. [Tremendous,cheering.]

The motion on being put was carried unanimously.

Mr Hall then moved—“ That this meeting is of opinion that the rates levied in this district by the Drainage Board have been greatly in excess of the benefit derived, and contrary to the intention of the Christchurch District Drainage Act, 1877, Moreover, the rates for the years 1879 and 1880 were levied when the district was practically unrepresented on the Board, and were in excess of the rates levied on the remainder of the Heathcote district, to which the borough was attached for representation purposes. This meeting therefore requests the Drainage Board to consent to arbitrators to apportion the works to be charged to Sydenham since the Drainage Act of 1877 came into force.” In support of the resolution, he said that if the Drainage Board would not let them secede, then Sydenham would have recourse to the Law Courts, and make the Board pay for their company. Mr Comber seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously amid enthusiasm, Mr Whitelaw then proposed—" That bis Worship the Mayor be requested te transmit to the Drainage Board smd to the Borough Council the resolutions passed at the present meeting, and that the Borough Council be requested to take such further steps as may be deemed necessary.” He hoped that the resolution would be temperately considered by both bodies, and result in good to the borough. He eulogised the conduct of Mr W. White, jun., on the Drainage Board, amidst protracted applause.

' Mr Sherlock heartily seconded the resolution, which was carried most enthusiastically.

The Chairman congratulated the meeting on the nature of the resolution* passed by them, and stated that the Borough Council were opposed to the Drainage BUL Mr Crowley moved a vote of thanks and confidence in their member on the Drainage Board, which was seconded by Mr Cates, and carried.

Mr White, junr., said he had done no more than his duty to Sydenham, and thanked the meeting very sincerely for the vote just passed. He briefly pointed out the injustice of the the proposals of the Drainage Board to the borough, and also defended himself from the charge made by the “Lyttelton Times ” that he intended to pollute the rivers. He emphatically declared that Sydenham did not wish to shirk her responsibilities, but only needed just treatment. He referred to the proceeding* of the Board as unjust to the outlying districts, and stated that he would rest content till next January, when the Board would have to meet the ratepayers. He assured them that he would do his best on the Board for Sydenham. It was proposed by Mr Joyce, seconded by Mr Hitching*, and carried unanimously—- “ That the Mayor be requested to call a special meeting of the Borough Council for next Monday to consider the resolution passed, and arrange to interview the Board,” A vote of thanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings.