THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2241, 8 June 1881, Page 3

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

A public meeting of the citizens, convened by Hi* Worship the Mayor, in compliance with a requisition to consider matters connected with the Drainage Board, was held at the Oddfellows’ Hall last evening. There was a very good attendance, the hall being well filled.

The chair wag occupied by Hie Worship the Mayor of Ohrietchurch, and amongst those on the platform were—Messrs J. Ollivier, W. White, jun., Grierson, H. Thomson, IT. Jones. His Worship, in opening the business, said he had called the meeting in compliance with a requisition signed by 112 citizens of Christchurch, which he would read, [Bead,] He had received a letter from Mr Harman, the chairman of the Drainage Board, which he would read. It was as follows : Drainage Board, June 7tb, 1881. His Worship the Mayor of Christchurch. Sir, —It will not, I think, be contended that a public meeting, such as that convened by you for this evening at the request of Mr John Ollivier and other ratepayers, is the most convenient mode either of discussing a public question, surrounded by very great difficulties, or of obtaining full information as to many doubtful points. In order, however, that there may be no doubt as to the readiness of tbe Christchurch Drainage Board to go fully into the matter, and to afford the ratepayers explanation, especially as to the proposed new Bill, I have the honor to state that if tbe meeting to-night should think proper to appoint a deputation for the purpose of having an interview with the Board, the Board wiU be glad to meet their convenience, and to arrange for a special meeting with such deputation at tbe Board office at as early a date as possible.

I have, &c., E. J. S. Haeman, [A Yoice—"Why did he not come himielf ?"] He had no reason, he thought, to ash them to listen with attention to the speakers, as the subject was one of the greatest importance to them. He would, therefore, ask Mr OUivier to address them. Mr Ollivier, who was warmly received, first requested the indulgence of the meeting for himself as suffering from ill health. However, he had resolved to meet them that evening, because it might be said that he was afraid to discuss the question. But the crisis bad now come, because the session of Parliament was near, and, therefore, at much personal inconvenience ho had come there that night. [Cheers.J Ho should have liked to have seen that hall filled to overflowing, because the subject was one of the greatest importance as touching their pockets, Some twelve months ago he bad addressed them from that platform, when the Drainage Board wished to bring in a compulsory Bill to enable them to carry out their most extravagant proposals. [Cheers.] There was, however, about the present matter a new scene. He wished to read them a letter which had appeared in the Pbebs. It was as follows: “to thb editor or the pesbb. “ Sir, —As at present advised, I prefer the opinion of Mr Clark and Mr Bell to that of Mr Ollivier on an engineering question. This may be a shame, but it is natural. “ Yours, &0., “ Bate payee.” Now, it was a singular thing that he preferred the opinions of Mr Clark and Mr Bell to that of Mr Ollivier on engineering subjects. Who dared to say that he objected to the great engineering talent of the late Mr Clark or Mr Bell. He attached a great deal of respect to the opinion of Mr Clark and to that of Mr Bell. But the scheme was not Mr Bell’s. They must remember that Mr Bell had been appointed engineer on the recommendation of Mr Carrnthers. The real fact was that Mr Carruthers had devised the scheme for the drainage of Christchurch, and Mr Bell was only a consulting engineer. This was important to remember, and he was not going to say one word against the professional character of Mr Bell; but. he was going to raise his protest, and ask them to join him in doing so, against the unconstitutional action of the Drainage Board. [Cheers] It was considered that it was a heinous offence to raise their voices against a scheme proposed by Mr Carruthers and carried into effect by Mr Bell. In England, some thirty years ago, there was a Metropolitan Board of Commissioners for the draining of London, hut what was the result. Why, that though this Board was composed of the highest talent London possessed, eight separate Boards were swept away by the ratepayers because they did not believe in their schemes. One of these Boards, the fourth of the series, appointed an engineer to carry out the work, but his scheme was rejected, and he died broken hearted. Now they had not yet arrived at that acme of civilisation—they had not yet killed an engineer. Yet, because they were protesting against being harnessed with a cumbrous and costly scheme, they were told that they were offering a factious opposition. [Cheers.] The drainage scheme of London had cost some thirty millions of money, and they in Christchurch, if they allowed the Drainage Board to work their will with them and do just what they pleased, would wake up and find that their scheme had cost them some millions of money. The system now proposed by Mr Clark was one of irrigation, and he objected to this, and he thought they would do so also. In England men of large experience had spoken on this subject of irrigation, and he would read them what was said. In a work on water carriage of sewage, published in 1879, there was an expression of opinion by the Board of Commissioners of the Local Board of Health in London, which went to prove that the cost of keeping up a sewage farm was greatly in excess of an ordinary farm, and that to stock it five times the amount of money required for an ordinary farm would be necessary. Now they were going to convert their Sandhills into a sewage farm, and they had before them the experience of men who were dealing with cities of thousands and thousands of people. Mr Morton, one of the best agriculturists, spoke of the difficulty in getting rid of the produce, as it grew too coarse to attract purchase. It was also said that the sewage was charged with the germs of disease. He need not weary them farther by reading extracts, but there were ample proofs that the system of irrigation was not the one which they should adopt. Again, there were numbers of large towns in which the precipitation process had been tried and found to be a failure. Ho said this, that'they must come back to what they had contended for since , 1864, viz., the improved pan system, i [Cheers.] This system, he contended, was i the one which would exist for a century, i It was merely an extension of the system which had prevailed in the time of the Hebrews, improved upon' and made to i suit their present circumstances. The same , system was in use by the armies of England i when they went forth to meet their enemies, i This was a system which they had insisted ; upon should be used for the next twenty-five r or fifty years. Professor Hutton had warned * them, from the reading of the works of the most eminent scientists of the day, that it

was the most dangerous thing for the health of the city to pour the liquid sewage upon the Sandhills. The air was laden in the dry season with the germs of disease, which would sow the seeds of death in their households. If Professor Tyndall and other eminent men told them this, were they to allow their children and their children's children to he poisoned to allow the folly of a few gentlemen to be carried out. [Cheers.] The chief object of their meeting that evening was to protest against the introduction of the amended Bill by the Drainage Board. [Cheers.] Twelve months ago, on the recommendation of Mr Clark, they went to the Parliament for larger powers to carry out the scheme. Hence the Bill submitted last session, and they would recollect that meetings were held all over the district to, protest against the system of carrying the whole excreta drainage to the Sandhills being forced on them. All that the ratepayers required was a system of storm water sewers to take off this water; and, as to a system of water closet sewage being put into the drains, they did not require it because it was before the time. They were told by the Board that they know nothing about the matter ; that they should take a back seat. Now, he told the Board that he did not care to take a back seat, and that so long as he could exercise any influence be would bring it to hear against granting this power. [Cheers.] The Board then said that if it were made to appear to them that the ratepayers objected to the water-closet sewage being put in the drains they would not persevere with the Bill. Well, they got some 2000 signatures in a very short time to a petition, and then the Bill dropped, particularly when the Board found that all the members of the House were opposed to it. He felt inclined to grasp the hands of his friends the members of the Drainage Board when they acknowledged their error and withdrew their Bill. But, now he found that another Bill was brought forward, which was called a Permissive Bill. Did they understand what “ permissive ” meant ? He thought he did, but be must acknowledge that he was totally unprepared for the idea that “ permissive ” meant that the Board should have power to grasp everything that belonged to the ratepayers. Some months ago Mr Harman stated that the Board had forwarded the Bill to the various local bodies, with a view to ascertain what the wishes of the ratepayers were, and if it was made clear to the Board that it was opposed to the wishes of the ratepayers that the excreta should be sent into the sewers they would not persist in it. He said this was a most abominable piece of sophistry. They were told that they should only send artesian water into the sewer except they connected their water closets with the sewers. Would they allow this to be done ? [Cries of “ No, no.] He said this, that the Bill, if ever presented to the Assembly, Would be rejected with scorn and ignominy. If any member was found to present that Bill in the House he would be told that he was not representing the true interests of Christchurch—[cheers] —and if it was necessary, there would bo petitions far more numerously signed than those presented last year. He said that the time was now come when they should say to the Drainage Board—- “ You do not represent the interests of Christchurch or the surrounding districts. You are a perfect fraud.” [Loud cheers.] In the new Bill the moment they had got the power to introduce the excreta into the sewer and give that power to one man, they might as well give it to 6000. He said this was a fraud, and be trusted that they would sign a petition to Parliament praying that the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law. [Cheers.] Now, as to the oostof this scheme. Mr Clark had told them that the cost of the scheme was to be £189,896, which was to cover everything. This was for a population of 20,000. In the city of Coventry, for 40,000 people, the total cost had been £132,300, and the rate amounted to 3s 9d in the £ for 40.000 people. In Birmingham there were 300.000 people, in which the annual cost was £139,176, or Is 3[d per head tax. Why was it in Canterbury they bad to spend such a large sum as he had spoken of ? What was the inference P Why, that they were wasting money. [Cheers.] Mr Hobbs, at no later meeting than yesterday, had stated that some £60,000 had been spent outside Mr Clark’s scheme. [Cheers.] Mr Harman had gone on to say that they had not received any such expression of opinion against the Bill as would lead them to believe that the ratepayers were opposed to it. Mr Ollivier then proceeded to quote a number of figures with respect to the charging of money to the various districts, pointing out that a fortnight after the accounts were made out that Christchurch was chargeable with some £16,000 less than stated. The Board had proposed to spend large sums of money in putting pipes down in Sydenham, Heathoote and Christchurch, but Sydenham and Heathoote declined to have them, and he trusted that Christchurch would also refuse to have them. [Cheers.] The Board said they required some £50,000 more, but they might rest assured that in asking for £50,000 they required £IOO,OOO. Mr Clark had told them that the cost of the pumping station would be £I6OO per annum, but he told them that it would be over £2OOO. They might also be sure that the sandhills would require to be levelled, and this would cost some £IOOO a year more. [Cheers.] Would it not be better, therefore, to say to these few gentlemen who lived in a centre of their own, Away with your stinking proposals. [Cheers.] What he advocated was an extension of the pan system, and when he said this he meant an improvement on the pan system. [Cheers.] The city ef Christchurch, which was doing the best they could for the health of the city, had now reduced the cost from some £3OOO a year to £1350. He believed that ere long the city of Christchurch, so far from paying£l3so]per annum for the removal of the night soil would be receiving some £2003 for it. [Cheers.] Let them consider what it would cost them to connect with these sewers as provided in this “permissive” Bill. He asserted that it would cost them some £4O or £SO to do it, [Cheers.] He said this, that the members of the Drainage Board individually were very good, but when they got together they made the most awful mess be had ever seen. He now begged to move—- “ That this meeting pledges itself to do all in its power to prevent the passing of the Drainage Bill which the Drainage Board has announced its intention to ask Parliament to sanction, and requests that the members for the district be respectfully asked to oppose the introduction of the same. It also recommends the signature of petitions to Parliament, praying for the rejection of the Bill.” [Cheers.] Mr Treadwell briefly seconded the motion. In reply to a question,

Mr Ollivier said that he believed that no system of exoreta sewage could be efficiently carried out without a water supply system, which would cost them £30,000 or £40,000. [A Voice—" Or more.”] Aye, or even more, [Cheers.] Now, he would desire to comment on the letter of Mr Harman, ae it would perhaps be a want of courtesy to pass it over. [Mr Ollivier read the letter.] He thought this was reversing the order of things. Ordinarily the representatives of the people came before them and explained their actions, but the Drainage Board wished them to go to them and bend the knee before them in that poky hole of their office, and ask what they were going to do. What ho should suggest to the Drainage Board was this, that they should invite the representatives of the various portions of the drainage district, perhaps numbering some forty or fifty men, to meet them and disonss the matter, letting the views of the majority rule. This was the scheme proposed by the Government in their reform of the Legislative Council, and this, he thought, as not beneath the dignity of the Lords and Commons of the colony might, be adopted even by so dignified a body as the Drainage Board. What they wonted was a rest. Let the scheme stop for awhile, as they had had quite enough of expenditure lately, and he felt the time had now come when they could with propriety take a rest from the very deep nipping into their pockets which had been going on for some time. [Cheers.] The resolution was carried unanimously. Mr F. Jones moved—“ That the resolution be forwarded to the Colonial Secretary and the Drainage Board, and that the chairman be instructed to sign the same.” Ho would not detain them, but simply say that he was quite at one with them in opposing the Bill. [Cheers. J Mr Biustead seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. A vote of thanks to the Mayor and three hearty cheers for Mr John Ollivier closed the meeting.