THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1882. LAST NIGHT'S DRAINAGE MEETING.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2538, 27 May 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1882. LAST NIGHT'S DRAINAGE MEETING.

It is, wa think, greatly to be regretted that the new Drainage Board has seen fit persistently to follow out the bad example set them by their predecessorswith regard to the introduction of their amended Drainage Act. It is true they havo complied with, all the formalities of law, bat they knew perfectly well that the majority of th&ratepayers are distinctly opposed to using the sewers for the conveyance of excreta. The late Board had to abandon two- Bills giving precisely theM no power, because the people protested against it. Yet the new Board does precisely the same thing. They introduce a Bill which, whether permissory or compulsory, means a violation of the promise given to the ratepayers, and in distinct defiance of their wishes expressed most emphatically. Wo have before now spoken of the value of public meetings, as a general rule, considered as expressions of public opinion. Nino times oi't of. tea they mean nothing^

and wo are quite prepared to admit that it would be absurd to say that because about one hundred persons say that such and such a course should be adopted, this is to bind the two thousand ratepayers of the Drainage District. But while this is, we would desire to point out that the action of the Drainage Board has left no other mode for the expression of public opinion. They will, no doubt, say, " Oh, the meeting last night was composed of not a tithe of the ratepayers. Perhaps many of them were not ratepayers at all." Then why have not these gentlemen done what we have urged upon them time after time, and what it is their bounden duty to do ? The relegation of the decision on such an important question as this, affecting as it does the health and lives of our citizens, to a public meeting, is most unsatisfactory we grant. Then let the Drainage Board assume their proper position, and say to the ratepayers —" Gentlemen, wo represent yon at this Board, and on such a question wo desire to consult your wishes and opinions. We will therefore hold a poll of the ratepayers on the plain issue, shall the sewers be used for the carriage of excreta or not?" This would be acting straightforwardly and np to the letter of the promiso given. It would also enable the mattor to be settled definitely, and, so far as seme years to come are concerned, with some degree of finality. There is no reason why this should not be done. The Board profes3 themselves anxious to ascertain what are really the views of their constituents on the matter. One of them—Mr Parker —speaking last night, said that he considered the Board were the servants of the ratepayers, and that he, individually, would always be ready to act according to their wish, if such wish were properly conveyed to him. Well, here is just the opportunity so ardently desired by Mr. Parker and the other members of the Board. They decline—and here we agree with them to some extent —to accept public meetings as altogether indicative of public opinion. But by their action, as we have shown over and over again, they havo absolutely prevented the public giving expression to their wishes in any more formal way than by that adopted last night. If, therefore, the Board are really sincere in their wish to ascertain public feeling on the matter, let them arrange for a poll, and we feel sure that they will have no cause to complain of the paucity of numbers voting on the occasion, nor the want of any clearness of expression. The whole subject can be debated as long as is thought necessary. There is no reason why meetings should not be held for a month even prior to the polling, at which both sides could be fairly argued out. The advocates of the rival systems might even go so far as to issue manifestoes giving their reasons and supporting them by such authorities as they might wish. The public would thus have time to carefully weigh over all the arguments pro and con calmly and dispassionately, apart from the excitement inseparable from a public meeting; and they could then go to the ballot, having made up their mind which way to vote. Reviewing the whole history of the subject we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the new Board have committed an error of judgment in not before taking tha ratepayers into their confidence. It is not as if there was nothing before to guide them. They knew perfectly well that pressure had been brought to bear on the old Board, so much so as to induce it to drop, though most reluctantly, two Bills. The opposition of a majority of the public was most pronounced, and yet in face of this they endeavor, under the guise of permissive clauses, to take to themselves a power which the ratepayers have emphatically more than once refused to grant to them. We have already in a former article pointed out the fallacy of making the distinction in discussing the broad general question of the use or non use of the sewers for the carriage of excreta. The effect of the system on the public health is exactly the same, whether it is made compulsory or permissory. The one question to be decided is simple enough, and wo hope the ratepayers will keep it steadily in view. It is this, " Shall the Board have power or not to allow excreta to pass through the sewers ?" The Board, in effect, say that the answer given last night by the meeting is not the answer of the ratepayers, and they will probably treat it like the old Board did similar resolutions.—relegate it to the waste paper basket, with a simple acknowledgment of its receipt. Very well, we are prepared even to go tho length of agreeing with them that the rosolntion last night does not fully express the opinion of the ratepayers. The obvious course for the Board to take is to adopt means to secure a proper and legal docision. This, as we have pointed out, can be obtained by means of a poll, and if the Board really mean what thoy say, we call upon them to do so, and that at an early date. If not, they will have only themselves to blame if they are forced to swallow the bitter pill already twice administered to their successors, of having to withdraw their little Bill in deference to the voice of public meetings, however unsatisfactory^ THE STANMORE ELECTION. There is an old proverb, " Let sleeping dogs lie," which we think Mr Cowlishaw would have done well to ponder over before he re-commenced his electoral campaign. It seems to us that it is the worst possible taste for him, after what has taken place, to come bofore a constituency as a candidate for representing it in Parliament. More especially is it so when there is every chance of the disability under which Mr. Pilliet now labors being removed. It would, wo think, after what has occurred, have boon better for Mr. Cowlishaw to have remained in the cool shade of private life until the somewhat unpleasant reminiscences connected with the Stanmoro election petition trial had faded from the public memory. Even now it is not too late. Mr. Cowlishaw can yet retire from the contest, the more gracefully as it is on the cards that Mr. Pilliet will bo ablo to offer himself more as a candidate. This at any rate would be a sotoff against tho peculiar little matters which came out on the trial.