Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A QUESTION OF DRAINAGE.

To the Editor. Sir,—Might I be allowed a little space in your columns on the above question, reported from the Borough meeting of last Friday. The local Health Inspector’s letter to the Town Clerk, stating that "a sewer would be available at the earliest possible moment,” and that “I (with others) am responsible for the nuisance caused by the drainage on to the street,” reads all right from him. But, Sir, this earliest possible moment has been in obeyance for three years, and is not yet in sight. As for the other, people’s drainage must have an outlet somewhere, we can’t eat it. I would also like to point out the date of my late father’s letter to the Council (over 15 months ago) re. this same drain question; the answer was then the same “soon, as possible.” I beg to differ with our worthy Mayor’s statement that the complaint is contrary to fact. This drainage nuisance was complained of three years ago, and still the open drain exists, and if that is not a fact, I don’t know one. If drawing the attention of the Minister of Public Health to this matter has any effect in hurrying on the continuance of the sewer, which at present ends about six yards from the corner of my house, it will be a good thing for residents at this end of the borough generally, and a lesser risk of fever for we complainants. Thanking you for the the space.—l am, etc., J. MURRAY.

To the Editor,

gi r At last we have succeeded in getting a full discussion on the matter of drainage across the railway. Mi. Swindells points out the injustice done to him by us approaching the Minister through the Member for the District, and also says Mr Smith could have got any information required. I should like to point out for Mr Swindell s information that Mr. R. W. Smith only did his duty in forwarding the letter to the Minister, and it wasn’t necessary for him to go prowling round Mr Swindells or the Borough Council for information, but perhaps Mr Swindells considers he has been slighted by the Member not waiting on him. No, Mr. Editor, Mi Smith had all the information that was necessary, and that was nil, which is all we, who have signed the letter, have been able to get after striving for information for three years. To sta*t with, I personally phoned the Mayor and explained the position, and was cooly informed that the best thing to do was to shift; but,, on asking the Mayor if he knew of a suitable house ■ to shift to, no reply was received. I next wrote to the Health Officer in Wanganui, but got no reply. I then approached M. A. Anderson, who sluiced out the drain, and that was as far as he could go. Mr Swindells was then appointed to the district, and I thought now we would get something done; but, on approaching him, was informed that the Council was negotiating witli the Railway to have a suitable drain laid. I then approached the Engineer on the Railway, who informed me that the Railway and Council couldn’t agree; so w e were back again to the starting point. Mr J. Murray and myself then wrote to the Council the letter which was published some IS months ago, and the Council then promised to have the matter attended to; but as time went on nothing was done, until in desperation we were forced to appeal to the Minister through the proper channel the district Member. I am pleased to note that it has had a certain amount of effect. In reply to the Mayor stating that our letter was not in accordance with facts, I think the above will prove that all that is possible has been done by us before leaving the block alone

and approaching the butcher. In reference to Mr Swindells’ remarks re not taking action against the people who are responsible,, well, Sir, if Mr Swindells considers we are committing a breach of the by-laws, why have we not been warned. Evidently he is very lax in his duties as Public Health Officer. However, I do not wish to continue, but just to state that if the matter is not attended to, we are quite decided to again approach the Minister. Trusting the new Council will have more progress and consideration for public health. —I am, etc.,

S. DUNBAR

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TAIDT19170424.2.13.2

Bibliographic details

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 24 April 1917, Page 5

Word Count
753

A QUESTION OF DRAINAGE. Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 24 April 1917, Page 5

A QUESTION OF DRAINAGE. Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 24 April 1917, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert