THE HALSWELL DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11539, 28 March 1898, Page 3

THE HALSWELL DRAINAGE QUESTION.

THE FAILURE OP THE SCHEME. A meeting of the Halswell residents was held on Friday night in the TaiTapu Schoolroom to receive the report of the committee appointed to constitute a drainage district for the better drainage of the river Halswell. Mr J. Woolfe, a member of the Selwyn County Council, presidled. There was a moderate attendance. The Chairman, in the course of : hia opening remarks, explained that the delay in presenting the petition for the constitution of the district had occurred in consequence of the Springs and Lincoln districts canvassers not returning sooner their portions of the petition. It had been stated, too, that there had been some misrepresentation as to the meaning of the words of the petition, and those making the accusation had been specially requested to he present to state the nature and extent of the charges. Mr T. Quealy, the honorary secretary, read the voluminous correspondence which had passed between the committee and the Government on the subject. The committee consisted of Messrs R. H. Rhodes, C. Lewis, M.H.R., H. E. Peryman, J. Sinclair, J. J. Herrick, T. Leathern, H. D. Buchanan, C. Gebbie, J. Woolfe and J. Quayle, of whom Messrs Peryman and Sinclair withdrew about the middle of last year. The petition praying for the constitution of the district was signed by 179 out of a total of 328 ratepayers, and it asked that the district should include certain portions of Tai Tapu, Lincoln, Springs and Halswell Road Districts.

Among the correspondence from the Colonial Secretary’s Office was a copy of a counter petition from Mr H. W. Peryman and forty-nine other residents, asking that consent might be deferred, “as the river Halswell offers sufficient outlet, providing it is annually cleansed, and the water in Lake Ellesmere kept at a low level, which is now well done by the Selwyn County Council.”

Mr j. H. Pannett and twenty-four others also forwarded a petition, asking that a certain area in the proposed district should be cut out.

Mr William Birdling and eight other* petitioned that their names should be withdrawn from the original petition “ for the reason that their signatures were obtained through misrepresentation as to the meaning and intention of the said petition.” A further letter from the Colonial Secretary stated that as twenty-six petitioners asked that their names should V.he withdrawn, and as it had not been shown that the majority of the ratepayers were in favour of the proposal, it was considered expedient to take no furfchet acfcion in the ‘matter. ,'

> The correspondence and .the petition# gave rise to an animated discussion before the meeting terminated. Mr Pannett objected to the scheme on the ground of expense, and that the hands included would not be benefited. Messrs Woolfe, Rhodes, Herrick,Leathem and Lknhrick, who were among thecanvassers, denied that there had been any misrepresentation by them. Messrs Herrick and Rainey denied that the Halswell outlet was sufficient.'

After further discussion^' Mr \Forbea moved a hearty vote of thanks; to the committee, and regret that their best efforts had been thwarted by untoward circumstances. . ...

Mr A. Gilmour seconded the-motion, which was carried by acclamation. Mr Rainey considered that there : should be some outlet for storm water to relieve the river Hals well. He advocated a River Board, which met with much opposition. On the motion of Messrs J. G. Murray and Herrick, ajhearty vote of thanks was accorded to the energetic honorary secretary. On the motion of Mr Rainey, seconded by Mr M’Cartney, it was resolved—“ That owing to the proposed district scheme having failed, a meeting be convened for April 15, tu consider the better drainage ofthe rivers Halswell and Ll.” . -q. " Mr Neale was elected convener, afyote q£ thanks was passed to the Chairman, and the meeting closed, : '