THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1882. THE CITY SANITARY SUPERVISION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2544, 3 June 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1882. THE CITY SANITARY SUPERVISION.

After what has been stated that the proposal to revoke the powers granted to the City Council mean nothing, it seems to us to be regretted that Mr. Parker’s motion to rescind the resolution was not agreed to. That certainly cleared the way, and would have enabled the Board of Health to have retreated from the position in which unwittingly the members have placed themselves. The proposal to confer with the City Council on the subject would certainly have coma with far more grace, and been attended with better results had the resolution committing the Board of Health absolutely to a certain lino of action been rescinded. This we take it was one of the reasons which induced Mr. Parker to table the notice of motion for the rescinding of the resolution, and it is to ba

regretted that the Board could not have seen their way clear to adopt it. The Chairman’s remarks showed most emphatically what the idea of the City Council on the matter is. That body decline to take up the position of administering the sanitary matters of the city under the Board of Health. The position the Council takes up appears to us to be the proper one. If they are to undertake the work they must do so, ■ together with the whole responsibility. This cannot be divided, nor can two bodies exercise control as proposed by Dr, Doyle. That would simply mean endless ■ confusion, and would never work at all. •Hence it does seem to us to be a great pity that having the opportunity of retracing what the Board must admit was a mistaken step, they did not avail themselves of it. Mr. Parker's motion would, if carried, simply have done what we have all along advised the Board to do, viz., let the whole matter drop. The arrangements made by the City Council for carrying on the work are admitted to be very good, and, therefore, there is no reason whatever for disturbing the present regime. Wo cannot but regard the amendment of Dr. Doyle for a conference as now framed as likely to do far more harm than good. His proposal is for a conference of all the local bodies within the drainage district to consider the amendments necessary in the Public Health Act. That is all very well, and we have no objection to urge against such a conference, though experience teaches ns that in nine cases out of ten no useful results arise from gatherings of that character. But what we desire to point out is that the question at issue is as between the City Council and the Board of Health. The former decline to give up the position of being the proper body to supervise sanitary matters within the city, which the latter by the resolution referred to refuses to recognise. The outside bodies, such as the Selwyn County Council, Sydenham and St. Albans Borough Councils, and the suburban Hoad Boards within the area, have nothing whatever to do with this matter, though of course interested in the general question of the working of the whole Act. The City Council may very fairly say “we object to. the question of whether wo are to retain the powers delegated to us or not being debated upon by persons not having one tittle of interest in it,” and the result will probably be a refusal on the part of the Council to take part in the conference. Again—and here we would point out the necessity that existed for Mr. Parker’s motion being carried—the Board of Health representatives at the conference must come fettered by the deliberate expression of their opinion, as recorded in their minutes, that the City Council should give up the powers now held by them. There is no other course open to them, and therefore, apart from the objection we have spoken of to the constitution of the conference, the whole | affair is a farce. But, had the way been cleared by the rescinding of the resolution, and the conference confined to those interested only in the settlement of the question in dispute, no doubt an amicable arrangement ■would have been arrived at. Under the present circumstances, however, this seems to us impossible, and we can’ confidently predict that, so far as the settlement of the point who is to have control of sanitary matters in the city, the whole affair will be a fiasco. The only course to be taken is to commence tie novo. Let the Board of Health rescind the resolution, and then invito the City Council to discuss the whole matter on its

merits, both sides being free and unfettered. This, as wo have already pointed out, was what Mr. Parker’s resolution would have effected, if carried. The Board, however, in its wisdom, declined to do this without, we are inclined to think, fully considering the bearings of the question which we have endeavored to put before them. We hope, therefore, that the Board will, under the circumstances, reconsider the question. There is no reason whatever why a general conference on tho amendments necessary to bo made in the Act should not be hold, bat the settlement of the particular point now raised should be confined to tho parties interested.