THE MAYOR AND "THE PRESS."

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11730, 3 November 1903, Page 5

THE MAYOR AND "THE PRESS."

In his statement to the City Council last night, t'ne .Mayor (the Hon. Henry F. Vvigram) said that probably many members of the Council had seen two articles which had appeared in "Truth" recently. To a certain extent they attacked him personally, but he did not, wish to bring that matter up. The articles in question dealt with tho important question of the water supply, and it was on that account h« brought them up. The articles dealt with pertain liters of his, which had appeared in "The Press," and he endeavoured to reply to them by sending a letter to "The Press" dealing with the whole subject. The editor of "The Pros" had declined to publish this, on the ground that it was against journalistic practice for one paper to insert a letter referring to a matter first dealt with in another paper. Mr (the editor of "The Press") had been mostcourteous to him in the matter, and he was quite certain that he had been actuated by tho highest possible professional views. But as he (the Mayor) had pointed out to him, the articles were based on letters which had appeared in "The Press," and he thought it right that the reply to them should appear in the same paper. He did not think he should be forced to enter into correspondence with any paper iu, Christchurcii because it took up remarks lie had made in one of the leading morning papers. The Town Clerk then read the letter addressed by the Mayor to the editor of "The Press," as follows:

To the Editor of the "Press."—Sir,—T'ne discussion under this head which 1 have been carrying on in your columns has brought upon me a violent attack from one of vour contemporaries. I think 1 am justified in requesting that, as the correspondence originated hi the "Press," I should be permitted, as far as I am concerned, to keep it there. Tho attack commenced by an article appearing in "Truth" on October 21th, under the heading "Our Misleading Mayor." in which it was suggested that I had' been so far contaminated by a few months in the Legislative Council as to deliberately attempt to mislead the citizens on a question oi fact, and that in future any statements of mine would have to be very carefully examined before being accepted. My reply was the letter you published on Wednesday last, not only repeating my statement, but also giving my authority for making it. Neither "Truth" nor its editor was mentioned in this letter, yet on Thursday last that journal returned to the charge with a repetition in an aggravated form of its former accusation. The statement called in question was that Messrs Walkden and Williams were in favour of the artesian supply being used. It was made in my letter of September 22nd, the day after the enclosed letter from Mr G. P. 'Williams had been read at the --iy Council. In this Mr Williams explicitly states that pumping from artesian sources was one of the main features adopted by our present advisers from the scheme proposed in 1896 by Mr Walkden and himself. The Heathcote was nowhere mentioned in Mr Williams's letter, but on subsequent reference I find it referred to in the report of 1896 in a paragraph of six lines, as a possible second string. Now, in my letter of Wednesday, I quoted this letter of 'Mr Williams as my authority for my statement. I pointed out that the' statement was made tlie day after I had heard tho letter read, and while it was fresh in my mind. Yet it is a most extraordinary thing that your contemporary while commenting very fully on every other passage of my short letter has suppressed, not I hope deliberately, all reference to this letter of Mr G. P. Williams, which I had distinctly quoted as my authority for my statement. But enough of "Truth." Let us rather consider the practical subject of the value of the artesian supply itself. I suppose it will be admitted that the quality and purity of this water is unrivalled, as is its even temperature summer and winter alike. Our engineers tell us that interest on cost of headworks, filterbeds and wain from the Waimakariri would more than equal the cost of pumping from the artesian, eo that the latter would be the cheapest as well as the best. The whole question is, then, whether this supply is sufficient, coupled with the somewhat vexed point whether in making use of it we should be damaging private wells. That the present supply obtained from several thousand wells if properly conserved, would suffice for a city many times larger than. Christehurch, will not, I think, be disputed by any one at all conversant with tho waste that is going on. But it is alleged that the supply is failing, and that the pressure of our supply is steadily diminishing. It would be strange if it Were not so, if we consider the number of additional vents made month by month as our wells go down ; but I venture to think that more water is being brought to the surface year by year though at less pressure. lam endeavouring to obtain certain data as to the number of wells and the delivery of water per minute from some of the most important, and will publish the result later on. In the meantime, the engineers' proposal is to utilise the first stratum at a point where it is not likely to affect many private owners. The reason for utilising the first stratum has been explained, but the question has now been raised: What if the supply is insufficientY Iu that case I can see no objection to supplementing the supply by using the water now going to waste from the five City Council wells, or by arrangement from private wells. ~ At about six feet above the ground these five wells are discharging about 350 gallons per minute. There could be no difficulty in conveying tho water into an underground reservoir at the Central Yard, and pumping it into the mains with the des-tructor power. At a maximum to supply 60,000 people, all taking water, we require, only 834 gallons per minute. Surely this is a" trifling demand on such a supply as wo possess. I sincerely, and earnestly hope that nothing will indace us to think of the Heathcote while such a supply is available. The Heathcote is, as we know, polluted in many places, and though, no doubt, capable of filtration, could never be made equal to our natural supplv. Even if all known sources of pollution were cut off the land drainage would still remain a source of danger. I must apologise for the length of this letter, but until we are agreed on the fundamental firinciple of the source of supply, it is irtle use discussing other point3.—l am. etc., Henry F. Wigram.