TO THE EDITOR.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 63, 15 March 1911, Page 8

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—After reading the various opinions of your correspondents ; : jojit the question of the water'and drai& age schemeat present .propb^ejl^Jiiy1 the" local Borough Council, I,bgg^to add a lew words, which I sincfeXety trust may turn the scale (if eve£i so slightly) in fafor of the said sehexne. 'A few of your correspondents have* from both sides, touched on . #|ie matter of the Christchurch sc|(emo } but so far as I could gather, riot one ,of them mentioned^ Sydenham, which, although only a borough at the time, had the foresight^ to . get a highpressure water supply long before Christchurch did, and I think it mainly owing to the benefits derived that Christchurch went in ftfr jts present scheme. Surely, in the face of this, the argument Christchurch j versus Blenheim falls flat, iriasmueli as we can bring Sydenham versus Christchurch as a far bigger argument. Although not a ratepayer in Blenheim yet, I was in Sydenham, and feel proud to say that, despite the fact that I had a really good artesian supply and also had a ram working, I was one of the first to get both, water-supply and drainage attached to my premises. In conclusion, 1 do not think that the local ratepayers attach enough importance to the fact that although paying extra rates these will be largely accounted for by the nightsoil account. EXPERIENTIA DOCET.