THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1882. “THE PRESS” ONCE MORE ON THE WAR PATH.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2477, 15 March 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1882. “THE PRESS” ONCE MORE ON THE WAR PATH.

If it were not cause for regret the attitude taken by our contemporary the “ Press,” on the question of the withdrawal from, the City Council of the delegated powers as a Board of Health, would be perfectly ludicrous. Starting with the assumption—perfectly gratuitous, by the way—that this is the proper time to carry into effect the revocation proposed, our old friend goes on to give the reasons which has induced this conclusion. The municipal authorities are performing their duties in a highly satisfactory manner, ergo, the “ Press” says now is the time to take sway the powers. Reasoning on the same basis, we suppose that had the Council grossly mismanaged sanitary matters, or brought about by their neglect an epidemic, the “ Press” would say that by no means ought they to be interfered with. This is precisely what the argument amounts to, because it is impossible only to take ono side of it. The manifest absurdity of such a statement must at once be apparent, and affords yet another instance of the fact that the “ Press” knows nothing whatever of the subject. The article goes on —-something after the style of announcing that her Majesty Queen Anne is dead—to tell us that no imaginary boundary line will prevent disease coming into the city, or vice versa, going into the suburbs. Who in their senses would ever think of arguing otherwise. Yet our old friend gravely, and with all the dignity of leader type, takes up some ten or twelve lines to tell us this most astounding piece of intelligence. The article then proceeds to deplore the consequences should the suburban municipalities also require powers granted to them. Why this should be a matter for fear we are unable to see. On the contrary, we should rejoice to see each of the suburban municipalities invested with the power of dealing with the sanitary matters in their own district. It follows, as a matter of course, that local men, familiar with every portion of the district in which they reside, would bo far better able to judge of the sanitary measures required to be taken than an inspector making flying, and to a large extent perfunctory, visits. If the suburbs were thus invested with power, the health of the district would be vastly improved, and instead of the direful effects conjured up by the vivid imagination of the “ Press,” wo should have a series of bodies working in harmony to one common end—the sanitary welfare of the community. Why it should be assumed that all the wisdom on sanitary matters is concentrated in the Drainage Board wa are unable to say. Bat the “ Press ” seems to think that out of the hands of the members of this body sanitary matters cmnot be administered safely. Our contemporary goes on to say that the Board of Health is a strictly representative body. No ono for an instant denied this, or asserted otherwise, but this has nothing whatever to do with the question. That is, plainly pat, shall a system which is admitted to be working well, and respecting the administration of

which no complaints are made, be upset on •mare personal grounds? We say decidedly not. If tho advocates of the revocation conld have come before the public and showed plainly that the Council were incompetent to do the work, it would have been a totally different story. But this la not the case, and that the advocates for a change have little or nothing to stand upon is amply proved by tho utterly weak and illogical article appearing in tho columns of their champion the “ Preas.” There is no danger of divided authority, which seems to be such a bugbear to our contemporary. The Board of Health in its district and tho City Council within its boundaries can and do work amicably together, and with benefit to the public. Where then is the evils of divided authority so pathetically deplored in the article under notice. Even the supporters of Dr. Doyle’s motion are unable to bring forward one single iota of proof that the work has not been done in a manner deserving commendation. Could this have been so had there existed ** divided authority ?” Not one single instance is on record of a clashing between the two bodies. Again wo ask does this look like divided authority ? We have left till the last tho most potent argument against tho proposed change, an argument which, by the way, we notice the “ Press ” most carefully ah- ■ B'ains from any reference to, though it is of vital importance. We refer to the question of funds. The Board of Health have no funds whatever for sanitary works and no power of rating. How then then, unless the law is altered, are they . going to defray the cost of keeping up • the system ? Tho City Council have the rating power, and can expend the money on works of necessity, which the other body cannot. Whichever way the Board decide to-day, there can be but one ■ opinion, and that is, that tho public ■ benefit will be beat studied by allowing the City Council to retain the powers they now hold, and encourage the suburban boroughs to acquire similar ones.