THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 1903. SLUMS IN AUCKLAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12343, 7 August 1903, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 1903. SLUMS IN AUCKLAND.

Apart altogether from questions of . sanitary law, all good citizens will unanimously condemn the existence in a community of any dwellings unfit, in themselves or iv theil surroundings, for human habitation. That such dwellings exist in Auckland has been officially charged by the district health officer, and it will be seen from an article on the subject published in to-day's New Zealand Herald that Dr. Makgill's sweeping generalisation can be to some extent substantiated. It must be admitted that the whole problem of sanitary housing in large and growing cities is beset with difficulties and complications, but it can be fairly held—as the law it-self theoretically holds— a sanitary minimum, to use a popular term, > should be rigidly insisted upon. If this is not being done in . Auckland, ; the public has a perfect right to in- ( quire why* For, apart altogether I

from Christian consideration ■ towards those who kre unable to help themselves in such a matter, there are • overwhelming public reasons why no, flagrantly insanitary conditions should he permitted, whether those inihiediately affected' are unable or unwilling to alter them. Not only may the slum-fever creep, into any house, /or the victims of unwholesome luh'Bimdihgs become a charge upon /the public purse, but the measure/of our public spirit is the measure m^ted'out to the humblest, and we cannot expect to have a clean and wholesome and beautiful city as long as obvious and unnecessary blemishes remain unremedied. There is not, and cannot be, any serious, difference ; ! of opinion as to the sanitary minimum which may justly and fairly be insisted upon. There are extremists on either side of the question, bub no particular weight attaches, when public spirit is roused* either to those who would enthusiastically ignore all material considerations and'thoSe who would as completely if more sullenly ignore all hygienic principles. And while referring to the latter element, it is not jtish; to forget that if there fere bad landlords there are also bad tenants and that .the twaihhave a most natural tendency to drift together. ! The public does not want the '.unreasonable, but it does want, and has ah absolute right to expect, the absolute elimination of all dwellings in which the usual and ordinary cleanliness, decencies, and wholesomeness of a civilised colonial city cannot -bo ■• maintained, -" and " the necessary co-operation for. sanitary ends on the part of each and every householder. Those who ai*e not prepared to join in such a civio doneention, made imperative by the intricate niter-dependence of all citizens in hygienic work, have no right to ■; endanger the lives of others however much right they may have to endanger their own, and should be compelled to fall into line or to remove to more sparsely-settled regions/; where the same necessities do hot operate. To state this ought to be superfluous, for upon it, as we hate said," there cannot be any serious difference of opinion. Yet although we all practically agree, and although there are laws and regular tions r enough on the subject to form a library, the melancholy fact re- ; mains that Auckland is hot only as I it Ought nob to be from the point; of | view of the sanitary expert, but contains grievous instances of sanitary negligence as sanitation, is under- ; stood by the .ordinary citizen. ■ And the real question therefore is: Who is to blame? We know who is to blame for our civic backwardness in : general sanitation, and we most sincerely hope that at the coming election, which will mark the downfall of the antiquated ward system^! ho councillor ; will be returned who does not pledge himself to work for the removal of our insanitary reputation, and who cannot be trusted to redeem that pledge. Bub in special and occasional cases of exceptional insanitation there must be someone at fault. We haVe [all heard, and most of us have objected to, Mr. Seddon's comments upon some Auckland dwellings, which he inspected in his customary off-handedness. And all, of us must h&ye in our minds incidents which ■have shown, from time to time; that the law is hot as rigidly enforced as ;it ought ; to : be. ; Possibly there has not been such watchfulness .on the'part of the public as there might have been, lor slums do hot obtrude themselves into main thoroughfares. Its modest and retiring disposition is, indeed, one of the worst features of a slum, for if it brazened itself in public view the energies of officialdom and councillordom would very speedily be compelled into ■ ■-' attack upon it. Yet,, despite of all that can be said as to the indifference of .the public, there is still left the fact of the existence of laws and of by-laws, of councillors elected to supervise and of officials paid to execute. If the law as i* stands is sufficient to remove all clear and ; indefensible nuisances, arid to prevent their repetition, someone mUst be to blame ,;• for : its ] non-enforcement. ;If the law is ;. insufficient, ■ although we are illdisposed towards accumulative legislation, we strongly ; favour, as ail ; good ; oitizens would strongly favour, its extension and strengthening. We are inclined to think -that the law is not to blame, and that if' citizens do their . duty at the coming municipal election,. it would be found much mors effective in the future than it has been in the past.