THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, MARCH 33, 1882. THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2490, 30 March 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, MARCH 33, 1882. THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Me. Vincent's motion which was carried at the last meeting of the Drainage Board deserves, and we are confident will obtain, the immediate attention of the public. It was to the effect " that persons wishing to conneet closets with the sewers, and having a sufficient water supply, he permitted to do so upon receiving permission from the Board." Mr. "White appears to have been the only member who took exception to the motion, urging very truly that the late Board had tacitly promised the public that no further attempt should be made to ntilise the sewers for solid excreta. We are glad to see that our morning contemporary the " Press " has taken the subjectup, and has traced the history of the various attempts made by the Board to force this, their favorite idea, on the ratepayers. Why the present Board should adopt a plan which has been proved to be so exceedingly unpopular, and which the population of Christchurch are evidently determined not to put up with, passes comprehension. There must be something in the atmosphere of the Boardroom which must prejudicially affect the judgments of those gentlemen sitting there. When the present members were elected it was not considered necessary to extract pledges from them on this subject, simply because the matter was considered to be laid by on the shelf. When the late Board was forced to abandon the idea through popular pressure, the people had a right to consider that the views which they held were so plain that the new incomers into office could not mistake them. They had, therefore, no suspicion that the new Board would turn round on them and endeavor to pass the obnoxious measure. What the public has now to do is to show to the new Board that it will no more stand nonsense from an elected than from a nominated Board. The public has put its foot down firmly on this subject more than once, and if the new Board thinks that it can, under the ajgis of a popular election, do what it likes, it will find that it is very much mistaken. There are plenty of men who are willing to take the lead in this matter, because it is a subject on which most feel strongly. The new Board might surely have dipped into the history of its predecessor, and taken warning from the extraordinary example of ineffectual obstinacy there pourtrayed. It might have seen what happened in 1880. At the time that the discussion of the Amended Bill was proceeding, a letter appeared on behalf of the Board declaring that, if it was made plain that a majority of the ratepayers objected to night soil being allowed to be put into the sewers, the Board would abandon their application, and this statement was repeated in a manifesto drawn up the Board. A monster petition was got up, and the Bill was quashed. And yet the following year the Board, actin g from no propulsion from without and with no new scientific data before it, again attempted to pass a Bill with the objectionable clauses in it. Again it was forced by the public to abandon the idea. And now the new Board, again acting from no propnlsion from without and with, as far as we are aware, no new scientific data to go on, has, without consulting the public, taken upon itself to do what the ratepayers have determined shall not be done. A more fatuous ignoring of the history of the question it is impossible to conceive. The public, we take it, are not one whit more prepared now than formerly to allow the solid excreta to be sent into the sewers. It was not contemplated in the original scheme, and the dangers attending such a course, particularly in a town situated as is Christchurch, are too manifest to mate it at all likely that the residents will be willing to run them. When the new Board was elected we drew attention to the fact that there was at least one objection to the choice of the ratepayers, namely, that the new men were totally inexperienced in the matters to regulate which they were elected. With the exception of Mr. White, they knew no more about drainage matters than they did about the further side of the moon. And yet these are the gentlemen who wish to make a totally new departure, and force on a reluctant public a scheme which the present Board and its predecessors, apparently almost alone, seem to think desirable. We may fairly ask the Board why it has passed this resolution. Has it obtained any new scientific information calculated to show that the dangers of this mode of conveying solid excreta have diminished. What are the latest ideas in England and the Continent on the subject ? Has the London scheme been so eminently successful that it has been adopted all over the country ? Why it is a well-known fact that one of the principal dangers against which residents

in London have to guard is the sewer K as. Extraordinary precautions have to be taken to guard against this prolific source of disease. And this, notwithstanding that the situation of London is well suited for this mode of the conveyance of solid sewage, and that there is any amount of flashing power. Do the provincial English towns adopt the London system as if it were an acknowledged sncceas? Bj no means. The proper mode of tho conveyance of the solid sewage is as open now as it was years ago •with the exception that the evil effects of sewer gas are more distinctly recognised than ever, and that the difficulty of guarding against it grows clearer and clearer. The continental cities have their own schemes, and tho mixing of the solid with the liquid sewage does not enter into most of these. Finally, what of Sydney, tho only regularly sewered city in the Australian colonies ? Sir James Martin two years ago said, and his assertion was not contradicted, that" diptheria, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever have established themselves in our midst, because from hundreds of inevitable apertures pestilential gases are constantly escaping." We are not attempting to give a scientific opinion on this matter, but we are merely mentioning what common sense forces on the understanding. The results of systems are plain enough, and it requires no scientific education to see whether a scheme is a failure, a comparative failure,

or a success. As a minor matter, and to show in what a slovenly manner the Board have considered this matter, we may turn to what was said on Monday respecting tho flushing power. Mr. Vincent said that the Engineer had provided flnshing power for the cleansing of the sewers. And yet no member made enquiries on what was a vital point, looking at the scheme with the eye of the Board. How is the flushing power provided ? According to the Board's statement of December there are more than sixteen miles of sewage conduits, counting concrete sewers and pipes, and more have since been added. Where is the water to come from to flush this extensive length? Somehow we cannot get water to flash our side channels properly, and yet these sixteen miles, requiring an infinitely stronger flow of water, are to be scoured out with the greatest ease ! At least the Board swallowed the assertion with the utmost complacency. Altogether the action of the Board on Monday is quite unaccountable, and we trust that the public will show them, as it has done their predecessors, that, however elected, they are not an irresponsible body, but the servants of the public, and that in such an important matter as that under consideration the wishes of the inhabitants must be consulted and followed out.