The Daily Telegraph. THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1900. CURRENT TOPICS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 9819, 19 July 1900, Page 4

The Daily Telegraph. THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1900. CURRENT TOPICS.

Mb Carnell, who has just returned from Wellington, informs us of a suggestion by the Hon. Hall-Jones which is worthy the consideration of the Harbor Board. The result of the Napier deputation on the question of the Western Spit difficulty was, as our readers have been already informed, a decision by the Government to send an engineer to report upon the matter. Mr Carnell was given to understand later that in all probability two engineers would be sent, MiHales and a colleague, to bechosen, and the Hon. Hall-Jones's suggestion relates to this. The Minister thinks it would be wise for the Harbor Board to employ Mr Maxwell on their own account, to act with the engineers to be sent by the Government, so that any report sent in would be the result of comprehensive investigation. We think that if the Board has such an opportunity offered to them as is indicated by the Government's intention to appoint two engineers, the suggestion of the Minister for Public Works with regard to a third expert ought to be adopted.

While on this subject it is only fair to Mr C. D. Kennedy to state, that the temporary protective works planned by him seem to have succeeded in achieving that for which they were designed. His last report to the Harbor Board set out in an able and temperate manner the pros and cons of the problem he was called upon to deal with, and as his remarks were backed up by the results of measurements made prior to and after the commencement of his protective measures, the deductions he advances are reasonable until overturned. By the next meeting of the Board doubtless other measurements will be available, and then the Board will be able to judge with comparative certainty whether the work already completed could be extended with advantage. In any case this troublesome problem may new be considered as within reasonable distance of solution, for whether Mr Kennedy's work proves sufficient, or whether the engineers who will report upon the subject generally may recommend some more comprehensive methods, the Board will be in possession of useful knowledge we may expect them to act upon. ;-

We do not propose to take up any large portion of our space in discussing mattersconnected with the Napier Borough Council that are personal to ourselves We think that the Council, being pre pared to spend thirty-six pounds in printing, might have given the printing offices in the borough an opportunity for competing for the work. This is about all we feel called upon to say. So far as we can find out it is unfair to blame Cr. Edwards for the blunder, as has been done, for his only share in the transaction was to write out, merely as a labor of love, the concise but readable letterpress involved. The Finance Committee of the Council, of which Cr. Cohen is supposed to be a member, sent the work away to Australia. But, as we have said, we do not care to inflict upon our readers anything but the barest- reference to th:s matter. We allude to it at all chiefly to remark that we would prefer to see Cr. Cohen devoting his energies to more important matters even than a printiug blunder.

Let him be content to know that his exposure of the wrong done will prevent it being repeated, and then go on to assist those who are moving in the direction of making the town as cleanly as it might be In spite of all that he and those who side with him have said or may say, the existing method of disposing of the nightsoil of the borough is not only filthy, but is absolutely dangerous. It ought to be abolished in favor of the water closet system, which experience in connection with the existing large number of sewer connections has proved to be practicable. At nearly every meeting of the Council lately they have had to discuss the very proper objections of the Hawke's Bay County Council to the disgusting and dangerous nuisance caused by the disease beds near the Taradale road, due to deposits of nightsoil iv water logged silt, yet sensible proposals to abolish the nuisance and at the same time make Napier a cleaner and healthier town, are opposed because (solely because, so far as we can see) to carry them out would compel a few landlords to incur expenditure.

To such an extent is this unreasonable opposition carried that those who represent the interests threatened pro pose to spend a thousand pounds or , so in baying a barge to convey night soil out to sea. Even if the cost of the proposed barge were the main item to study such a course would be inadvisable, seeing that we have a system of sewers which, upon the authority of Mr Napier Bell, ought to be utilised for getting rid of excreta by means of water closets. But the upkeep of the barge system would mean a large annual charge for wages and for towage. Probably what recommends the barge to those who object to water closets is that the latter would have to be paid for by landlord?, while the cost of a bargo systiiiu would fall partly upon those whoso interest in property is chiefly confined to paying rents for the use of it. Moreover the filthy aspect of the system would be

almost as revolting under the barge system as at present, for it would involve the night carts and all the other disgusting paraphernalia which the opponents of a water closet system seem willing to tolerate.

The Mayor does not seem to be very strong on arithmetical points. In dealing with the attempt to collect rates for a full period of six months, for twenty-four days of which rates had already been paid, he argued most peculiarly. He gave it as his opinion that by so doing the Council did not receive any more money, " because" if they had wanted more money they could have struck a rate of tenpence instead of one of ninepence. There appears to be a fair amount of the lucus a non luctndo method about this generalisation. We may take it in two ways. It may be held to mean either that if the Council had wished to get for twenty-four days less than six months the sum of a rate for the full period at ninepence, they might have imposed for the lesser period a rate of tenpence, or we may assume the Mayor to argue that because the Council had the power to impose a rate of tenpence; therefore they were right in assuming twentyfour days less than six months to be equal to six months.

We will not insult Mr Swan by assuming that he meant the latter. But if he intended to convey the former, then he admitted that since they would require a rate of tenpence, for six months less twenty-four days, to be equal to a rate of ninepence for a ♦'ull period of six months, they were trying to collect on the equivalent of a tenpenny rate while only empowered to do so on one of ninepence. And that is so very like asking for " more money " that we do not see how the fact can be disputed. However, the Council have now decided to do what they wish to do in proper order, and that will end the difficulty, so far as they are concerned and also the difficulties they created for others by adopting the wrong method at first. With regard to the latter the Council's decision affected transfers of properties, buyers objecting to be asked to pay twice over for a period of twenty-four days when confronted with rate demands which did not agree with receipt forms previously issued. It was the knowledge of two cases of the kind (there may have been more, but we knew of two) which led us to object as we did to the Council's action.