The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1883.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1143, 1 September 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1883.

DRAINAGE OF GERALDINE. We are glad to find that our efforts with regard to the drainage of Geraldine have not been in vain. The second issue of the Geraldine Guardian pointed out the advisability of this step being taken, and in the shape of letters to the editor from respected correspondents in that town, and leading articles, the subject has been kept pretty well before the public since. The result is that the Geraldine Road Board has now come to the conclusion that the work is necessary, but we do not approve of their scheme. The Road Board’s proposal, so far as wo can understand, is to lay down pipes from the back of the Geraldine Hotel by the back of Tasker and Co.’s premises, and up along the street in front of the auction rooms recently occupied by Mr T. W, Corbett, to a creek at the back of the township. The object in view, evidently, is to empty all the sewage into this creek, In a letter published some time ago in this paper it was pointed out pretty forcibly that such a j course would not be advisable at all. It was shown that this creek runs through seme newly-surveyed town sections to the lower and more thickly populated part of the town, and that if the Board turned its sewage down this stream it was probable they would be liable for damage. We are not prepared to say whether they would or would not, but wc think that to turn the sewage into a creek that runs through the town is a very unwise course. This creek is bound to run dry sometimes, and the result ts that its bed will be all filth, which, when exposed to the sun, would be sufficient to infect the whole town. The subject is an inviting one to write about. We prefer leaving our readers to imagino what the creek will bo if the plan ie adopted, than to enter more fully into the matter. It would, in our opinion, only distribute all over the town a nuisance which is now centred in one place, and would do no good. No doubt its cheapness is its principal recommendation, but so rich a body as the Geraldine Road Board ought to look more to efficacy than to cost. As the Board has taken up the matter at all they may as well take it up in a manner worthy of them, and drain the town in a way that will ensure permanent benefit. It is, perhaps, not altogether within our province to submit plans to them, but at the same time we should like them to consider whether it would not be advisable to run the sewer down the main street to its junction with High street and then take it out into the bad of the river, Here a

concrete tank—without any bottom so that the liquid matter could percolate through the sand—could be built, with a cover over it so that it would cause no annoyance to the neighborhood. Airtight doors or flood gates could bo put on either side of it, and when a flood came these could be opened and the tank cleaned out. Such a scheme would we think be permanent and efficient. The cost may be more than the first plan, but the Road Board hare plenty of money, and the town of Geraldine has a right to hare a shore of it spent on improving it, Let us suppose for instance that the people of Geraldine took it into their heads to separate from the Road Board and form a Town Board, what would bo the result? It would be that the Road Board would have to divide its funds, and give the Town Board a share proportionate to the rateable value of town property as nompared wiih the remaining part of the road district. This would be far more than would drain the town, and if the Road Board well take our advice, they will deal liberally with the townspeople so as not to drive them to separation. As for a special rate to carry out the scheme, the Board have no right to levy it while they hare money lying idle in the bank, and we hope they will not try to do so, We feel gratified at finding attention given lo our suggestions, and we hope what wo have said in ibis article will also receive due consideration.

THE EDUCATION QUESTION. The evergreen question of Religious Education cropped up for the third or fourth time this session last Tuesday night in the House of Representatives. Mr Pyke brought up the report of a Committee appointed to take evidence on the subject, and on this a discussion arose. The appointment of the Committee in the first place was a piece of tomfoolery. The present Parliament has not the remotest intention of introducing religious training into schools, and to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter was a delusive subterfuge on the part of the Government to convey the impression that the subject would receive consideration. In the course of the debate Mr Swanson said he had asked one of the witnesses, ‘ Supposing the Roman Catholics were in the majority, would you give concessions to the Protestant party V The answer was, ‘ Decidedly not. Wo could not countenance error in any form.’ If this were true the Roman Catholics would certainly deserve no consideration. Mr Swanson’s statement may be correct enough, but still it is possible he may have been mistaken. Ur Moran when contesting the election at Dunedin gave expression to different views altogether. He is the most advanced advocate of the claims of Roman Catholics, He is in fact an enthusiast in the matter, and he is besides one of the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church in New Zealand. He was questioned very closely at the hustings in Dunedin when he contested the election there, and he promised to vote for Bible reading in schools, and for giving to Protestant children every facility for receiving religious education. The only sect he declined to give any concession to were the Freethinkers, whom he told plainly he would not encourage in any way whatsoever. Now we prefer Dr Moran as an authority on the policy of the Roman Catholic Church to Mr Swanson’s witness, whose bigotted nonsense will, we hope, be disowned with scorn by the Catholics of New Zealand. We do not wish to discredit Mr Swanson’s statement, but at the same time it is difficult to realise how any sane man could give such an answer. The report of the evidence is to be printed. We shall no doubt get a copy of it in due course and we shall look with a good deal of interest to it, with a view cf ascertaining who this individual is, and whether he used the language attributed to him. In the meantime we shall only repeat what we have often said before. It is hopeless to expect any change in our system of education while sectarian differences remain as irreconcilable as they are at present. If our advice were taken, the various churches would combine together, and agree to a certain prrgramme which would be religious, but unsectarian. The great principles of Christianity, the leading historical facts, and the moral obligations of man could surely be inculcated without tresspass ing on sectarian grounds. It would not be necessary to teach that St, Patrick was either a Protestant or a Catholic, or that St. Augustine was a Primitive Methodist; neither would it be required to discuss the relative merits of “ Bloody Mary ’’ and “ Glorious Queen Bess,” nor would a dissertation on the Gunpowder Plot be absolutely wanted. It would be well if disputed points like these were never discussed—for children will learn too soon all about them. What children require is to be taught their duty to Goa and to man in ns simple a way as possible, and that could be done if the various sects would only try to be a little more agreeable to each other. The less they know of religious bigotry and intolerance the better for themselves and for the country in which they live in. It the various sects agiee amongst themselves as to what shall he taught and what shall not, Parliament will very foon ratify

their arrangements, and get suitable bonks specially printed for the use of schools. If not, they will cont’n ip wrangling till doomsday wi*limit doing any good, while people through want of religious training will go over to increase the Freethinkers’ camp, and thus lessen the chance of introducing religious training, Tiie above article was written for our last issue, but had to be held over. Since then we find that the following telegrams have passed between Bishop Moran and Mr Swanson in reference to the statement made by the latter : “ Papers report you said that one of the clerical witnesses before Joint Committee stated that Catholics, it majority, would make no concession to Protestants. Is this correct ? If so please state his name and oblige.’ Mr Swanson to the Bishop ; —“ Am not responsible for what is in the papers. The evidence will be printed soon and made public. Will forward Hansard so that you can see what was said in the House.” It would appear from this that Mr Swanson is evading the question. His refusal to answer the question certainly throws doubt on the veracity of his statement. Up to the present fanaticism was supposed to bo chiefly confined to churchmen, but it would appear that the Freethinkers are becoming tinged with it also. If Mr Swanson told a deliberate falsehood—and it looks uncommonly, like it for his statement is not credible—he has been guilty of a very mean and contemptible action.