THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2537, 26 May 1882, Page 4

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

MR J. OLLIVIER AT WOOLSXON.

Bast evening a public meeting of ratepayers in Hesthoote district was convened by Mr John Ollivier Mr Thomas York was voted to the chair. Abont fifty persona were present. Mr Ollivier prefaced his remarks by observing that a meeting bad been held a long time ago when a necessity arose for those residing in outlying districts to give expression to an nnmistakable opinion. It was then declared that the whole of the drainage of Christchurch and surrounding districts should be simply a system of drainage to relieve the surplus water and carry offensive staff blowing into the drains to the Sandhills, where it should be inmoaoui and inoffensive. In 1877 Mr Oarruthora’ scheme was propounded, setting np the ratepayers in arms. Mr Oarmthers’ scheme was a positive fraud on people living in that district. It had been returned to Mr Caruthers and amended. [At this stage, Mr E. Jones, late member of the Drainage Board, at Mr Ollivier's invitation, took a neat ou the platform. J The outfall drain, instead of being placed according to Mr Oarruthers’ scheme, was put at the end of Ollivier’s lane It bad cost the speaker £l7 or £2O to connect with the “ blessed sewer ” running under that very road, and to no earthly benefit, Their river was poisoned, and, to find that out, one need only go and put bis nose over it, os he had done, for the operation required a couple of glasses of whiskey to remedy. He was glad to see Mr Jones had pluck enough to come forward and stand before those he had been elected to represent. [Applause.] When Mr Carrnthera’ plan had been brought before thorn, Mr Bray coincided in their opinion. Fortified by this, they said they would have none of the excreta pat in 9in pipes in every street in Christchurch, the effect of whioh wouldjbe to poison the neighborhood. The ratepayers communicated their final Intention to the Board, whioh replied that it did not intend to introduce water closets into the system of drains. After referring to Mr Clark’s scheme, Mr Ollivier said that in 1879 a Bill was proposed, full of paltry clauses, and the decision of the ratepayers was unanimous against it. After some show of bluster that Bill collapsed, and it never got into Parliament at all. Yet the contracts were entered into as if nothing had been said. Then came the Bill of 1881, from which all the so-called peremptory clauses had been expunged. It had been thought that what had transpired in two years would have been forgotten, but there was a weasel in the district that was not asleep, and did not choose to be muzzled. At a meeting of the Board in June, 1381, the then chairman (Mr Harman) had said he perhaps ought to mention that ha had beet requested by Mr E. C. J, Stevens, one of the then members for the city, to mention to the Board that in the face of the opposition shown to the Bill in various parts of the district, he was of opinion that nothing would be gained by proceeding further in the matter, and that the Bill should be abandoned. Mr White moved “That the Bill be abandoned.” On Mr Boss’s motion, seconded by Mr Tanored, an amendment was carried :—“That the Board proceed with the Bill, consenting to the exclusion of clauses providing for the carriage of excreta in the sewers.” Passing on to 1882, Mr Ollivier said his friend Mr Jones was a model of virtue, and a pattern in every sense of the word, but seemed perfectly overshadowed by the miasma in “that office.” An ‘‘innocent little duck of a Bill ” was presented, deprived of all peremp'ory clauses. The Drainage Conference the other day had not sat in solemn conclave, considering clause by danse, but *ound the table as serious as owls, and looking pretty much as owlish. The residents of that district were going to have the privilege of paying 6d in the £, and for what ? After further remarks, Mr Ollivier proposed—“ That this meeting pledges itself to do all in its power to prevent the passing of the Drainage Bill, whioh 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 same, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Hon. the Colonial Secretary and to the members representing the drainage district.” Mr John Davis seconded the motion, protesting against being poisoned in that district by the filth of Christchurch, and urging that the sooner atepa were taken to stop the river from being poisoned at both ends the better. Mr F. Jones having given some arguments in refutation of Mr Ollivier, proposed an amendment—“ 1. That this meeting is of opinion that the present members of the Drainage Board have administered the affairs of the district diligently and faithfully ; 2, that their proposals to give the ratepayers in the sewage area the fullest possible advantage of the large expenditure incurred on sewage pipes deserves our favorable consideration and approval.” This was seconded by Mr Richard Brown pro forma. Mr Joseph H. Hopkins spoke in favor of Mr Ollivier’s motion.

Mr Oliivier having spoken, tho amendment was put, and was lost, only one voting for it. The resolution wa» then put, and was •carried, only one voting against jt. The proceedings concluded with a vote of thanks to the chair, proposd by Mr Jones, and seconded by Mr Oliivier. As the meeting dispersed three cheers were given for Mr Oliivier.