THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 322, 17 January 1879, Page 2

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

A special mooting «f the City Council was held last night to consider Councillor Fishi r's motion relative to the employment of Mr. C iniie as drainage engmeor Tho Mayor and all the Councillors, with the exception of Councillor Miller, were present. A preliminary question was raised as to lh v bearing of the motion upon tho Reorganization Committee's report, which, as adopted by the Council, decided that the engineering staff should be greatly reduced, and should consist of a chief aad assistant engineer, the former to have supreme control of all works — drainage, waterworks, and others. Councillor Fishek moved that the motion relative to the adoption ol' tho report bo rescinded, and Councillor Mnghmity seconded. Councillor Moss pointed dut that according to the Act it was necessary to have a " unanimous vote of all the Councillors " to rescind a motion, but the Mayor, afier a lengthy discussion, said he should read " all the Councillors " as meaning all those present. Councillor Fishbr'o motion was lost. The M*yor said he noticed that the manuscript report, is adopted, contained various interlineations nnd marginal notes which were not initialed, and he should therefore rule that it was informal and of no effect. Councillor Divbr— How do the appointments of Mr. Baird and the other city officers stand, then? Councillor FisHßn— They'll all havo to clear out at ouce. After some further discussion, Councillor Fisher and others protesting that it wouid be useless to go on with the motion relative to Mr. Climie's appointment unless the Reorganisation Committee's report were formally rescinded, the Mayor said he would tako upon himself the responsibility of deciding that the report had no legal forco. The motion before the meeting was "That Mr. Clitnie be appointed Drainage Engineer." Councillor Logan rose to support the motion. He said that as it was at his suggestion that Mr. Clark was called in, some explanation of his present position wa< necessary. His reason for moving that Mr. Clark should bo consulted was that he disapproved Mr. CJimie's drainage scheme, which had been accepted by the Council, because it proposed to pump the whole drainage ot the city, and he thought this should be avoided, it' possible. Mr. Clark came, and, unfettered by any conditions, prepared a scheme. Mr. Cliinie, on the other Innd, was fettered by two formidable conditions — one being that tbe cost was not to exceed £80,000, and the other that the pumping station was to foe outside the town. The last condition might not formally appear on the books ol the Council, but those conversant with the facts knew that it was nevertheless a condition. As Mr. Climio pointed out in liis report, if he had been allowed to place his pumping-station in Pirie-streot lie could have drained a large area by gravitation, tbe original co3t would have been reduced l>y £2000 or £3000, and there would havo been au annual saving of £700 or £800 in the working expenses. Air. Clark in his report acknowledged this. Councillor Logan next weut" into minute details of Mr. Clark's scheme, quoting Sir Joseph Bazalgette, Mr. Rawlinson, and other eminent engineers to sh»w that it was generally laid down that, to be self- cleansing, '9in 83wers should have a velocity of 150 ft to 180 ft par minute, while Mr. Clark had provided for only 106 ft. In Brooklyn the velocity was 270 ft. Mr. Clark hud also underestimated the volocity required in some of the larger sewers. Tho accepted rule of English drainage wa9 that tho smaller the sewer the greater tbe velocity required; but now Mr. Clark had come to the autipodes ho reversed all this, and acted at if the largor the sewer the greater the velocity was the ruie. As to the pumping arrongemeuts, he was not iv a po It:on to criticise them. But it must be evident, even to one entirely unacquainted with engineering, that the rising main would become choked, because it was proposed to allow the sewage in it to lie almost stagnant for 20 hours out of the 24, and the solid matter must necessarily settle down. Councillor Logan next compared tho reports of Mr. Baird, Mr Chmie's pamphlet, and Mr. Clark's scheme, to show that other errors had been committed, saying it would be madness to co« on with Mr. Clark's scheme after these exposures. But he did not proposo to leave the drainage of the city ontirely in the hands of Mr. Chime, and he would suggest an addition to tbe report, which he thoucht would meet the views of all parties. It was that Mr. Chtnie should act under a committee, consisting of the Mayor, Councillors Huuter, Allen, Greenfield, Fisher, and himself, with Mr. Baird aa advising engiueer, who should have power to ra,ake any alteration they might deem necessary in Mr. Clark's scheme. Councillor Gkbbnfibld seconded the addition, saying he thought it would meet the views of both sides of the Council. Dr. Ditbr objected to such a limited ceramntee being appointed. The present committee, which consisted of the whole Council, was the proper thing. ' On being put, Councillors Greenfield, Fisher, Maginnity, Logan, and Young voted for the addition, acd Councillors Hunter Thompson, Dixon, Allen, Moss, and Diver, and the Mayor against it. The addition was therefore negatived. Councillor Moss remarked that Mr. Climie had already received abaut £1000 from the Council. Councillor Fisher: Whore do you vet your information from I * Councillor Moss-From the b)oks of the Council. The exact figures are £995. Cr. Moss then moved as an amendment, "That n Drainage Engineer be appointed under the City Engineer, and that Mr. Ciimie be offered tho appointment, at a salary of £ — pep annum," the amount to be filled in by the Councillor Dixoh seconded the amendment. Councillor Huntbr, referring to the remarks made about Mr. Clark, said the Council should remember tbat he wm selected by tbe> Institute of Civil Engineers at the re attest of the Sydney Corporation, and that should be • sufficient guarantee of the eminent position in the profession which he occupied. He thought it was a pity to mix up another matter with the question under discussion, and that wa» the way in which Mr. Climie had been treated by the Council. If Mr. Cliinie bad not received full compensation for his services, let his claim be properly considered, but the two questions should not be mixed up. Whoever was appointed most act under the City Engineer, or conflicts would arise. Councillor Divbr said he would not attempt to criticise Mr. Logan's remarks, because ha thought that only professional men. had the authority of Mr. Baird foraying that Mr. Clark's calculations were within theltnei laid down by many eminent engineers, and that his (Mr. Baird's) alteration! were oul» bean aHowed to discharge the sewage loS o?£E B £ W * proposed. If M^ Clark hLJP'JW CQU n d **?« pm ln the discussion, they could easily show that Mr. Login's, figures were wrong. As to "this amendment,, he could not vote tor it, for as Mr. ClimfehaS expressed such decided opinions against Mr. Clark s scheme, it would be almost an insult to offer him the appointment. [Councillor Fisher-Certainly, under the terms proposed]' «,e agreed with Councillor Hunter that if anything was due to Mr. Cliraia it should beat once paid. Councillor Afcwx st some length reviewed

his action on the drainage question to prove that he had acted consistently throughout. CouncillorGßEEMFiEM) detailed the various ositions the Council hadoccapiftd with respect to Mr. Climie, pointing out that ipedal inducements were offered to him to submit a scheme and a distinct promise was given that if it wen not adopted it should be returned to him, s< that no other man might reap the benefit oi his calculations. Virtually the Council had accepted the scheme he submitted, and had then thrown their, engagements to the wind. He felt that Mr. Climie b&d been badly reated, and could not therefore support the amendment. Councillor Yotjko supported the original motion because he believed that Mr. Climie had not received justice. CouncillorTHOHPsoK did not know whether anything was still due to Mr. Climie, but if so, it should be paid at once. His own opinion was that Mr. Climie should have nothing to do with the dreinage works. If he were an independent engineer he would clash with Mr. Baird, aid he would not consent to act under Mr. Baiid. The Matoh endorsed the remarks of Councillor Greenfield relative to Mr. Climie, and added, it was only fair to state that Mr. Clark bad said that if Mr. Oiimle had not prepared the way his (Mr. Clark's) scheme would not have been so well received by the people, and he had otherwise expressed his obligations to Mr. Climio. He (the Mayor) could not vote for the motion, because it would lead to divided authority and serious difficulties ; but he was entirely of opinion that something should be done for Mr. Climfc . Councillor Fishbr, as the mover of the original motion, replied at some length, urging that Mr. Baird had already more work to do than he could possibly get through, and it would be ridiculous to add the drainage works to bis responsibilities. He could not understand wby Mr. Baird was to be allowed to make what alterations he pleased in Mr. Clark's scheme, and Mr. Climie was not to alter a gradient. There was a strong feeling in favor of Mr. Climie's appointment outside the Council, and to test this he was willing to resign his seat and appeal to the ratepayers if any other Councillor would do thftsame thing. mv amendment was then negatived by 8 to 4. Councillor Thompson moved as a further amendment, "That the City Engineer be instructed to give immediate effect to Mr. Clark's scheme, as amended, and that Mr. Climie's claims be referred to a Committee of the whole Council." Councillor Logan seconded pro forma, and proceeded to address tbe Council at great length for tbe purpose of forcing an adjournment of the debate. Councillors Fishbr, Greenfield, and Youno followed, also talking against time. A motion by Councillor Mnginnity that the debats be adjourned was put and negatived. At length (4.30 a.m.) every Councillor having spoken, there was no alternative but to put the question, when Councillor Thompson's amendment was carried by 7 votes to 5. the division being : — Ayes, the Mayor, and Councillors Allen, Diver, Dixon, Hunter, Moss, and Thompson; Noes, Councillors Fisher, Greenfield, Logan, Maginnity, ar=d Young. The Council then adjourned at 4.40 a.m.