“The Press” In 1864

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30499, 22 July 1964, Page 16

“The Press” In 1864

July 22 REPORT OF THE CITY SURVEYOR

Of the value of Mr Moore’s report, in an engineering point of view, respecting the drainage of Christchurch, we can hardly speak with any confidence, because he simply gives his opinions, but does not give any of the facts necessary to enable us to test his conclusions: but we may express some regret that, in a literary point of view that document does not exhibit a little more care in its preparation. For example, it is not an uncommon mistake to hear in conversation that a thing J?- TS >. w^en it is meant that it lies; but when we read in a formal report of the south part of Christchurch “laying” to the north of such a line, we are provoked to remind the writer the

hens lay, whilst the eggs lie in the nest. But “the remaining portion of the town south of this line” is described as performing a far more singular feat than laying; for we are told it “would be carried away b" the Ferry road drain.” The Kaiapoi people may hold as many indignation meetings as they please after that, but their perils are as nothing compared to ours. Here it appears a large part of Christchurch “would be”—we are not told under what circumstances, which only makes the danger more terrible by mystery “carried away by the Ferry road drain.” Mr Moore ought to be compelled instantly under penalty of torture, to confess what these mysterious circumstances are, under which so awful a calamity is likely to occur. We implore our readers to consider, if the

slipping in of the bank into the drain has already cost the country so much in compensation, what shall we not have to pay if a large part of Christchurch follows its example! . . . We want to know what it will cost to drain certain streets, those most thickly inhabited, and what works must be done for that purpose. Mr Moore leaves us to find this out as best we may from his partial and slovenly estimates. We really do not know what the City Council will do with this paper, but for our own parts we have no hesitation in saying that a more unsatisfactory document never emanated from a public officer. And it was for the honor of procuring so careless, unsuggestive, and barren a document as this that Mr Doyne’s services were refused!