TIGHTNESS V. TYPHUS.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1158, 15 April 1872, Page 4

TIGHTNESS V. TYPHUS.

.Referring to the peculiar distinction made between nuisances caused by drink and stink, the writer of "Casual Notes" in the Otago Daily Times says : —

Pursuing this subject a step farther, I may remark that the principle on which persons convicted of nuisances are punished, appears to be, to say tbe least, slightly peculiar. If a roan gets helplessly, and therefore harmlessly, ■ drunk in the streets, he is fined ten shillings or a pound. If a man allows a nuisance on his premises, to the great discomfort and risk of his neighbors and passers-by, he is fined a paltry half-crown or five shillings. Kay, in many instances we read in the newspaper reports of such cases that " the case was dismissed, the nuisance having been removed." Why such leniency? If a man steals a watch and is caught, is he let off if he gives up the stolen article 1 If a man shoots at another and misses him, is he let off because his intended victim has received no injury 1 Of course not ; yet a man who allows a nuisance on his premises has been equally blameworthy, for it is no thanks to him that his neighbors have not been poisoned. The offence has been committed even though injurious results may not follow. The offence, moreover, is a very grave one, for, as Professor Huxley said on a recent occcasion, "if my next door neighbor chooses to have his drains in such a state as to create a poisonous atmosphere, which I breathe at the risk ofjtyphus or diphtheria, it is just as much a restriction on my freedom to live as if my life were threatened with a pistol." If the Mayor nnd a Councillor or two were to die of disease fostered by the leniency with which these offences are punished, we should doubtless see an improvement in the direction of salutary rigor. Till that consummation is arrived at, however, any one may poison his neighbors for a few shillings.