OUR READERS’ OPINIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVIII, 12 March 1914, Page 6

OUR READERS’ OPINIONS.

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. [TO THE EDITOR] Sir, —Your report of what I said in Convention during the debate on the Bible in Schools leaves the impression that I support the platform of Hie Bible in Schools’ League. I shall be greatly obliged if you wu permit me to say that though opposed most emphatically to tho introduction of tho system of denominational teaching advocated by that League, I urged the adoption of the amendment in order to avoid friction in our unions.—l am, etc., J. ROBERTS. March 11, 1914. ,

SANITARY CONDITION OF THE BEACH AND RIVER. * [TO THE EDITOR.] Sir, —From the discussions of this matter by the local authorities, it may bo gathered that there is some uncertainty as to the best course to adopt in regard to this question, and it is also evident that attempts are being made to lay tho responsibility for the nuisance upon minor and negligible causes.

As a property owner and a citizen whose home comforts are being seriously affected in a manner which cannot be permitted to continue, I feel it osseptial to write plainly on this subject. It must be realised that the present condition of affairs is unendurable for matters have now reached such an objectionable stage that one cannot leave a window open at night —one of the first necessities for the maintenance of health —without being awakened (at low tide) by the stench which penetrates through it. Whatever friendly feelings one may have towards an industry which in the primary cause of such objectionable conditions, one must realise that this matter is one which must he put right at all costs, and it is idle for those in authority to shrink from facing the real and principal cause. In the first place, I am fully satisfied from both past and present observations, that the main, in fact almost the sole cause, is the discharge of drainage from the two freezing works. I make no distinction between them as to which is the more responsible, for, when we consider the matter, we cannot fail to see that- both are heavy contributors. A Rough the upper works come in for a large share of the blame from the general public, it should not be forgotten that tho lower works are discharging all tho time and they pollute not merely the beach, hut the river also, for a considerable portion of their refuse is carried up by the in-coming tide to join forces with what is already in the river, thus adding substantially to its pollution. If my views in this respect are right then, I suggest there are only two lines of action open. The first is to notify the freezing works that it is their drainage which is causing the nuisance and to call upon them to take tho whole of the responsibility of finding ways and means of abating that nuisance within a reasonable time, and, further, in the event of their failing to do this, to see that proper steps are taken to required them to find another site for their works. If this course were followed, , the freezing works would be obliged to shoulder the responsibility of making sure that their drainage does not for the future create any nuisance. If they succeed in this then all further complaints will, of course, disappear, hut, should they fail then they and they alone will be to blame if this town finds itself forced to cause such steps to be taken as would mean the closing down of their works and their consequent removal to another site. As Pile who is largely interested in the freezing industry, I trust that tlie respective managements of both works will be able to devise a satisfactory way of permanently avoiding all future causes of complaint. There are suggestions that our sewerage system is to blame. When it is remembered that the present objectionable smell existed during the summer months before the present system was installed, it must be realised that there is no justification for these suggestions. If there are any disadvantages in connection with the septic tank, which I am not aware of, these can be speedily remedied. There can be no suggestion whatever that tho sewerage of Gisborne is finding its way from the Borough system into the river before passing through the septic tank and, since the installation of the sewerage, w ith vorv few exceptions, the large quantity <- r sewerage from hotels and private places which previously found its way into the river, has now been diverted in consequence of these places being linked up into the general sewerage system. Whilst I regret the necessity for speaking as plainly as I have done, I feel that the cany [respect of any real remedy is for us lo get down to bed-rock and m phmo the responsibility on the right shoulders. I think, however, that the Harbor Board might substantially help the position by” having the river locked. This would keep the objectionable mudflats covered and would also, according to past engineering advice, assist to flush the river and so keep it clear of silt and sand.

The Harbor Board already have an estimate, made by Air Leslie Reynolds, to the effect that it would cost about £BOOO to lock the river. Even if it cost double that amount, wliat would the annual cost of that be to this town and district ? Tho cost should be borne by the country as well as by the town. Of course, before this can bo carried into effect, legislation' would have to be passed, authorising a poll being taken but. this could easily and speedily bo obtained. I suggest that iff the case of such a remedy as this, the country ratepayer's should willingly contribute their share towards the cost, and that for two reasons. Firstly, it would help to keep the river clear of silt, a matter in which they are equally interested with the town, and secondly it would help to minimise the present causes of complaint with regard to nn industry in which they are all immediately interested. I would not .say that the locking of the river would absolutely do away with the trouble, but it would certainly help the position and enable the freezing works to remain on their present site longer than would otherwise be i>ossibie.

I t should be'realised, that t.lio cause of complaint is a growing one, due in my opinion, to the increased quantity of stock handled by those works each year. Ltast year they handled between 500,C00 .and 600,000 sheep; this year they will handle some 600,000 or 700,000, and I will venture to say that in a matter of a few years, they will he handling over .a million sheep. It should therefore be plain to those in authority at the works' that they must look ahead and realise that unless they themselves can cope to-day with this growing 1 industry in such a way that it does not create a- nuisance, they must understand that it is merely a question of time before they will he compelled to move. All I can say in conclusion is this--if the local authorities do not see their way to take the steps necessary .to have this nuisance abated and to. cope with the complaints, then some of us, private property owners, will unquestionably take action in the matter. Regarding the suggestion of appointing Mr Mestayer to advise upon this question, I trust that the authorities will not select him, for the reason

that he, has already reported on the question of the sewerage,of this town, and also recommended the adoption of the Waihirere water scheme, both of which schemes were rejected bv the ratepayers. It is to be hoped that some such person as Mr Laing Meason (who has not. already reported on logal matters), will be selected, should such appointment be necessary which, to me, is questionable unless the .Harbor Engineer requires assistance in advising how the river should be locked if tho Board decides to do so.—l am, etc., AY. DOUGLAS LYSNAR.