Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8064, 4 October 1887, Page 4

If the subject were not too serious 'to laugh over, it would be amusing, as it certainly is instructive, to peruse and consider the explanations that are given for not dealing with the town refuse in Auckland as it is dealt with in Dunedin—namely, transferring it by rail from the city, where it is a nuisance, to the country, where it is wanted for manure. We have been trying for a long time to find the occult reasons for the unwillingness of the local authorities here to follow the example of their Southern brethren in getting rid of in a harmless and economical manner ihat which, injudiciously disposed of, is a danger to the health of the city, and has already damaged the harbour. We but recently learned that they did not consider, on communicating with the railway authorities, that the facilities offered could afford much promise of success. Many must think, however, that an arrangement in this way which suits Dunedin might be found to answer Auckland also, and— it would be extremely desirable, if practicable, and would solve a great difficultythat it ought not. to be ignored or summarily rejected. Having, therefore, urged that there should be official intercommunication on the subject between the two cities, the following paragraph was published in our columns the other day : —

With reference to the cost of the removal of nightsoil by railway, it appears, from information from Danedin that uas been received by the Town Clerk that, although it '8 collected by the contractors at the cost of the ratepayers, the removal by railway costs the Council £600 per annum—viz., nightsoil depot, £140 rent; railway charges and factory, £374; receiving, £170 ; sundries, £16; total. £700—contribution by contractor, £100 ; balance, £600.

Now, Auckland's "City Council can hardly obtain the reputation of being a model economical body. Though there are such things as city endowments, they do not seem to have yet worked much of the help expected to the ratepayers and our local Government, smitten with the example of the central Government, have already provided for us an immense millstone of debt. Everybody knows that £600 a year is a trifle in the eyes of our local managers, and yet that amount is ' inferentially put forward as a reason for leaving us now for a series of years without what is in practice as well as in theory a satisfactory method of refuse removal, while during the same time expensive public works—sewers peculiarly unsuitable here, dangerous to the city health, and to the harbour—have been talked about, projected, and in part constructed. Most assuredly the trifling cost of removing the refuse by rail was never the real reason for ignoring the system which has been adopted by Dunedin. True, we are told in the above paragraph " that although it is collected by the contractors at the cost of the ratepayers, the removal by railwav costs the Council £600 per annum." Now, we quite fail to see how any additional expense on the ratepayer as thus hinted at should be made to apply to Auckland. Have we not already a system of refuse removal, and would it not be as easyor, rather, much easier—to carry the refuse to the railway, instead of carrying it about, as is now done, to some one or other piece of waste ground upon which to cast it 1 "We are puzzled to understand why taking it to the railway station, instead of say to the neighbourhood of the Western Springs, should be made to afford a pretext for a new and special charge! Of course, farmers do not want the refuse in the unqualified state, and upon this point a correspondent, who, under the signature of "Light," champions the negative conduct of the City Council, speaks of the cost of labour " as rendering it almost impracticable to produce material to compete with imported manures." What is the meaning of such a remark as this'! What is the costly manufacturing process to which he refers 1 Is it anything more than the mere commingling of earth with the nightsoil, a thing which is done, or is supposed to be done under the present system of removal in practice here ? The simple manure thus obtained has been pronounced by Liebig and other acknowledged judges as the best of all manures, quite competent to hold its own against any imported guano. As Liebig forcibly puts it, •' the country feeds the town, and the town should sustain the fertility of the country." It is a disgrace to Auckland and our local management that we are not already doing what is done by Dunedin, thereby rendering a double service—a service to ourselves and others, to citizen and farmer. There is no reason why Auckland should not have entered on this course as soon as Dunedin, or even sooner, for it is only since it was suggested to Auckland that it has been entered on by Dunedin. Recommended by the greatest economic and agricultural writers, it might have suggested itself to our municipal body, that what the canals do in China in this way could be performed by the railways here. But not entertaining the idea themselves, they have been resentful of its being suggested to them. Such bodies like their own particular grooves, and have a proverbial antipathy to innovation. Hence the threats on absurd pretexts of new charges becoming necessary— order to frighten off the ratepayers' from requiring the adoption of this new system. As " Light" pathetically puts it, " unfortunately the item of cost is of great consideration when there is a general disposition to keep the rates and burthens on property as low as possible." No doubt the Auckland public is known to be a patient creature, but after all his tax-bearing capabilities in disposition and pocket are overrated, and we take leave to assure " Light " that it is not an increase of the citi-

Zens' contributions to the municipal exchequer that will be tolerated, but & reduction of them that is now looked for and required. But quite compatible with judicious economy in the civic expenditure, is the adoption of a system for removing the city's refuse, which offers the prospect of being ultimately a source of revenue, and which, though involving a small expense for a time, is p.t once tht cheapest way of accomplishing the removal, as well a. the only effectually innoxious one.