Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERT TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1096, 6 July 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERT TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1882.

The proposal of the Borough Counci] to raise £25.000 for water supply ha? been laid before the ratepayers and rejected. There was very little discussion on the matter, the greatest apathy being exhibited by those whom one would naturally suppose to be most interested. The meeting was opened by the Tlayor, who placed the proposal before the assembly and asked for a decided expression of their wishes regarding it, Mr. Somervell spoke in terms antagonistic to the project, and was followed by Mr. Townley, who was the mover of the proposition in the Borough Council, and who boldly and lueidiy put forth his powers in support of the scheme. Mr. Townley expressed himself as looking upon the supply of water in the town of Gisborne as a vital and immediate necessity, pointing out how, in addition to its direct use such a supply would prove invaluable as a motive power in application to machinery, and very probably afford us what is so great a want in the town, light by night. We agree with Mr. Townley, recognising most thoroughly the force aud veracity of the arguments he employed in support of the scheme. There can be little doubt that water is the great necessity in this town, and not very long ago the people who now oppose any expenditure in connection with its supply were loudly calling for it and abusing the dilatoriness of a Municipal Council which did nothing towards the furtherance of such a supply, The Council went to work in earnest, and produced estimates for supply in two mains, a 6 and 9 inch respectively—the cost of the former being £19,000 (nearly), and the latter £21,000 on the calculations of Mr Drummond, Borough Engineer. The Council then resolved to ask the ratepayers whether they would agree to the borrowing of £25,000 for the carrying out of the 0-inch main scheme. When the proposal was placed before tho ratepayers they rejected it without advancing a single argument against it that would hold water. Archdeacon Williams in speaking against the scheme, showed plainly that he spoke on personal interests and not with the public weal in view, and in so doing used argument and illustration more puerile than true. The venerable gentleman iu opening his discourse expressed a wish that Dr. Pol-

ifijf was present to support his view of the question, and then proceeded to say that if a large body of water was brought into Gisborne without first having a thorough system of underground drainage the inevitable result would ba disease and death. The venerable gentleman evidently draws largely upon his imagination for his facts. Will he consider what becomes of the refuse water as at present used in Gisborne? Does he for one moment mean to tell us we can render things worse than they now are P Does he mean to infer that the presence of sweet, wholesome, fresh water will exaggerate the existent evil instead of reducing it to a minimum ? If that is the line the the venerable gentleman intends to pursue we regret very much that our intellect fails to carry us in his track. That drainage is necessary we freely admit, but we feel quite sure that one main drain into which surface drainage could be conducted would answer our present purposes, and give us breathing time before going into what will doubtless be a not far distant consideration—a thoroughly efficient system of underground drainage. The Archdeacon’s studies have evidently not led him into hydraulics, or into the sanitary matters connected therewith. He estimated the cost of water supply and drainage at £40,000. By what process of reasoning he arrived at this sum we are at a loss to know, We have gone somewhat deeply into the matter, and we find that our figures by no means . tally with the Archdeacon's. If, as we have said, we content ourselves presently with constructing one main drain, and leading our surface drainage into it, the cost can be included in the £25,000 loan, or £15,000 under the venerable gentleman's calculation, while, if we were to Undertake the construction of such a thorough system of underground drainage as we hope at some not far distant period to see in Gisborne, the cost would exceed the venerable gentleman's calculation by about the same amount. To tell us that we cannot have pure water till we have such a system is to ask us to believe that the cays of our childhood have returned. Dr. Pollen surely never meant that when he wrote on the subject to the Herald. Then for the burden upon ratepayers. That would be very nearlv compensated by the reduction of insurance necessarily consequent upon the immediate presence of a good and powerful water supply, and the doing away with tanks as the sole resource for water storage. Suppose a man builds an eight-roomed house; ho will certainly have to put up tanks capable of storing at least 1,000 gallons of water, and this could not be done nt a less cost than £2O, a sum sufficient in itself to cover water rates, even if they were in reality so oppressive as the opponents of the scheme endeavor to | show, for some years. Thosp ,oppo ' nents are mostly persons who have ' already gone to considerable expanse i in providing themselves with water ! storage, and are thus thoroughly indifferent to the wants of others, as

being independent themselves. Again, as Mr Townley very clearly and intelligently shewed, there are many latent advantages in connection with a water supply which do not seem to be taken into account by its opponents. Machinery would be worked by it. Light may be generated by it ; the streets might be kept watered by it, and many other benefits would arise from its presence which would thoroughly compensate ratepayers for its cost. We have no doubt that Messrs. Parnell and Boylan’s and other large drapery businesses suffer as much damage from one day’s dust in the heat of a dry summer as would pay their water rates for the whole year. That Mr. Pile should oppose the scheme we wonder greatly. To a man following his trade an unlimited supply of sweet, wholesome and pure water we should have thought would have been invaluable. We do not think the matter has received fair consideration. The advantages in connection with it having been carefully depreciated, and the cost of it greatly exaggerated by its opponents. The Archdeacon was singularly unhappy in his selection of Napier as an example of these advantages. There are many of us here who know Napier quite as well as the Archdeacon does, and who recognise most thoroughly the fallacy of his illustration. The truth is that the venerable gentleman as the representative of considerable property in the Borough, is sorely afraid of having to put his hand in his pocket. That he will have to do so before long we can assure him, for although the question of supply has presently been thrown out, we thoroughly intend to have it brought forward again. Messrs Townley and Carlaw Smith were the only two persons who had the courage to come forward in support of their opinions on Monday night, although there were others present who were thoroughly with themin those opinions, and their arguments were sound and incontrovertible. Capt. Tucker and the Archdeacon endeavored to the best of their abilities to smother those arguments, but in point of veracious fact they were singularly behind their age. Notwithstanding the adverse determination of tho Monday night's meeting, we yet hope to see tho question of water supply deeply agitated in Gisborne, and not coughed down and shelved by the influence of a few large property holders.