Wairarapa Daily Times. ESTABLISHED 1878.] THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1894. THE PESTILENT CREEK.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4625, 18 January 1894, Page 2

Wairarapa Daily Times. ESTABLISHED 1878.] THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1894. THE PESTILENT CREEK.

SECOND EDITION

Mb. Hornblow did his duty in bringing under the notice of the Borough Council on Tuesday evening the dirty condition of the creek running through the centre of the town, and the Council virtually refused to do its duty, which is to keep the said creek pure and wholesome. The position of the Council in this matter is a littie peculiar, for it breaks the law itself by placing obstructions in this watercourse, and it therefore cannot with any good grace interfere with individuals who are doing the same thing. The Inspector of course knows that the condition of the creek is a, disgrace to the town, but then he is ft servant of the Council, and if he went beyond its wishes in the execution of his duty, his- occupation would be gone. His first duty is olearly to indite the Gounoil for obstructing the stream, but no reasonable person can expect him to do this. The fault does not lie with the subordinate officer but with the employers, and it is onr duty to point out that the Borough Council is a double sinner;it not only leaves undone what it ought to do, but it does acts' which it ought not to do. The public are apparently protected by stringent legislation against the propagation of disease,but as the local body, entrusted with the administration of the law,is supine, it follows that they are at the mercy of dozens of people, who openly and persistently foul a stream running through the very heart of the town. Even the Police Offences Act provides a remedy against fouling streams with offensive matter, but the polioe would no c'oubt say this a matter for the Borough Council and its Inspector, and it is not our duty to interfere. Under " The Municipal Corporation Act" the Council is actually prohibited from creating a nuisance, and it is open for any burgess to take proceadings against the Masterton body, and if this were done wo do not see how the Council could escape a conviction. Ample provision is made under clausa 239 of the Act to deal with a case like our pestilent creek. This clause runs as follows : Upon the certificate ol two duly qualified medical practitioners or the affidavit of any three burgesses aud the certificate of one medical practitioner that any building or place in the borough is in a condition likely to propagate discaso or endanger tho health of any person the Mayor may by warrant under his hand require tho owner or occupier of suoh buildby cr place forthwith to cleanse, purify and disinfect the same to the satisfaction of any medical practitioner or other person named in each warrant. And if suoh owner or occupier fails within the time named in such warrant to comply with the direction thereof it shall be. lawful for the Inspector of Nuisances under the authority of a warrant under the hand of the Mayer in that behalf to.enter with suoh assistance as may bo necessary upon suck buildup or place and to cleanse, purify and disinfect the same and the Council may recover the cost of such operation together with tho fees paid to the medical practitioners omployed from suoh owner or occupier. Or turning to the sanitary regulations framed by the Masterton Bor ongh Council itself, what do we Jin J 1 C1au5e590,91,92, say:No person shall contraot, use or permit to be used any drain whereby any impure water or offensive matter is conveyed or intended to be conveyed into any creek or watercourse within the Borough. No person shall place or cause to bo placed any dead apimal or offensive matter jn any creek or watercourse within the Borough,' The owner of any property through whieh any creek or watercourse runs shall at all times keep suoh creek or watercourse free from watercress, weeds or other obstruction to the flow of water therein, Those clauses are broken every day in the year by the Borough Oounpil, and by personß living on or near the sides of the creek. It is a matter of common notoriety, and could be proved at any time:by the evidence of the Inspector himself. Some ten or twelve years ago when ' similar complaints were made about , this creek, and when the Masterton : doctors reported that disease was ' being generated by its filthy condition, ' some of the members of-thV.Counoll , faced the difficulty, and by personal i ipvestigatipn' satisfied., themselves j that it required dealing, with, Of' course it would be idle for "'the Bor- ' ough; Council to gij on a visit of i inspection now, because it knows that 'i its first dufy • would be to order its f own obstructions'tp be removed, and Ij this is a .difficulty it dots not date to J.i

; ' • ar!aes:as y : to"- whether >/stim6 steps; J taken.by residents who ( auffec from this: nhhealthy conditioii of decreet: to odmpei: the looal body.' tor perform' the plain 'duty imposed upon it by law. \ ;, *'' ;..v- I