GOVERNMENT AND DRAINAGE BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14086, 14 December 1907, Page 9

GOVERNMENT AND DRAINAGE BOARD.

Pro.|sai)j,y ivjion the member* of the Dimcfliu Drainage Board who formed a deputation tq the Prime- Minister last Jlqnday had leisure to reflect upon,the reply that was made, to their representations tjipy came to «the conclusion not haying been convinced, they were of the same opiuion still. Sir Joseph Ward's attitude was not very promising. On the one ' hand, he allowed {hat ifle representation!? made to him should have the fullest- possible considoratipn; on the >- other, lie reasoned in such a way as to convey to the members of t-b.o /.leputatiqu * tlie impression that the Drainage Board was fortunate in getting even I'lOO for the drainage pf pijb|jp b'uilijings in this city. Anyone who studies Mr Burnett's little list of tljeso buildjn.gs tjiat are to fie served by the drainage system, for the handsome return of £100 to the Drainage Board must; come to tin: conclusion that it was a very good day for the Stq.ro when that Board came info existence and lnniifriirnrpd a rnmpreliwivp drainage scheme. ]t wou|d lie interesting to knoiv wnat ifc would cost the Government to secure through the medium qf private contraer the services it now ontains so cheaply by utilisation of an undertaking -ffhich has involved the city in a heavy outlay. Even according to .so mild a- .critic of tlje Government as Mi- A. ]{.. Barclay, the local buildings pf the State, if'they contribnted to the revenue of the Drainage Boayi] in proportion to their yajiiqtion, wqiila pay £750 a year instead of £100, and, pf course, tjip. question of future •public buildings to bo erected has to ■be- considered. There seems no reason to be "really impressed with Sir Joseph Ward's attitude in relying on principle a? a sufficient justification of the- ppsitjpn takon up by t'hp Ciovernment in this uonneetion. The facVi'unt, as was stated j>y Mr gjd.ey. the Government pays £52 a year to a private contractor for sanitary sen-ices rendered at the Hillside Workshops, which are as yet noc connected with the drainage tystepi, tnkes the force somewhat out of Sii; Joseph Ward's argument, that if Kervic.es pf this kind rendered to Statg departments are to be paid' for in the ordinary way it should lie hid down by Act of Parliament, It is idle to spea'k of what would happen if the principle niledj that ;ill public hnikjings should •pay rates and taxes, for the principle does not rule, nor is' it suggested thnt it should. Tl)p whole question at issue 111' this matter involves the receipt, by the Drainage Board of an adequate remuneration for services rendered to Government departments. Tjio exemptio,i qf public buildings from'rates and taxes has really no bearing on the matter, and the Government should pay fairly for what it get?. That it has agreed to. the payment of £100 shows that it admits the principle, for if the Prime Minister's reasoning is sound it woujd be better for it to pay nothing and stand upon its right to get something for nothing from such a body as tho Dunediu Drainage Board. This, however, would be inconsistent with the Government's own inter-depart-mental practice, as instanced by the definite charges made by one department apsjiust another. Tim Dunedin Drainage Board does not ask that public buildings should l>o put on the same footing as private buildings even in regard to payment for sanitary scrviefts. At present it is only asking that in regard to the public buildings at present served by tho drainage system it should receive £169, or as much as tho State pays in respect tq the drainage of public buildings in Oliristchurcli. ■ This is nqt an unreasonable request, and the Government could accede to it and still have a compact very advantageous to itself with the Board.