DRAINAGE MEETING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4097, 8 June 1881, Page 4

DRAINAGE MEETING.

» .. A largely-attended public meeting was held last night in the Oddfellows' Hall, " to consider the action of the Drainage Board, and the Permissive Bill intended to be preaented to Parliament next aesaion." His Worship the Mayor presided ; and on the platform were Messrs John Ollivier, H. Thomson, W. White, junr., Grierson, Treadwell, F. Jones, Binstcad and Izitt. His Worship opened the proceedings by stating that the requiaition, in compliance with which he had called the meeting, had been signed by 112 burgesses. He read a letter from Mr R. J. S. Harman, Chairman of the Drainage Board, as follows : — " Bir, — It will not, I think, be contended that a public meeting, such as that convened by yeu for this evening, at the request of Mr John Ollivier and other ratepayers, ia the most convenient mode either of discussing a public question surrounded by very great difficulties, or of obtaining full information as to many doubtful points. In order, however, that there may be no doubt as to the readinesß of the Chrißtchurch Drainage Board to go fully into the matter, and to afford the ratepayers explanation, eapecially as to the proposed new Bill, I have the honour to state that if the meeting ' to-night should think proper to appoint a deputation for the purpose of having an interview with the Board, the Board will be glad to meet their convenience, and to arrange for a special meeting with such deputation at the Board's oflice, at aB early a date as posßible. — I am, kc, "R. J. S. Habman." A Voice : "Why did he notcome himßelf ?" Another Voice : "He was ashamed to." The Chairman concluded by calling on Mr John Oih'vier to address the meeting. Mr John Ollivier, who was received with applause, commenced his address by craving indulgence on account of ill-health. The importance of the crisis had induced him to risk inconvenience and discomfort, and he had determined not to be taunted with " you are afraid," but to show himself that night before the ratepayers. He wished the hall had been crowded to discuss a subject which would touch the pockets of the ratepayers very closely. From 1864 to the present time the subject had been discussed, and only a year ago he had had the honour of addressing the ratepayers on the Compulsory Bill of the Drainago Board. The Board, however, had not been satisfied with the roßult of the previous controversy, and though he might almost content himself with reiterating what he had said at previous meetings, new circumstances had arisen and called for something additional. Mr Ollivier then referred to a letter which had appeared in the Press, from a correspondent, saying that the writer preferred the opinion of Mr Clark- and Mr Bell on an engineering question to that of Mr John Ollivier. Ho (Mr Ollivier) had the greatest respect for the opinions of the late Mr Clark. Mr Bell had nothing to do with the jcheme, which never waa hia That gentleman had never designed a drainage scheme, but Mr Carruthers had laid out the scheme which Mr Bell had been called upon to carry oufc. Mr Bell wob nothing more than the constructing engineer. He was no opponent to an eminent and talented man such as Mr Bell undoubtedly waß, but would protest against anything that was unconstitutional. Go back to what had taken place in London, not more than thirty yeara ago, where the Metropolitan Commissioners of Drainage consisted of some of the most eminent engineers of England. How did they deal with tho drainage of London ? Why in auch a way that no fewer than eight Boards were awopt away became tho citizena were not satiafied with any of them. Yet because the citizens of Ohristchureh objected to be saddled with an enormous burden of debt they woro lo be called

"obstructive fools." The eminent engineer '] Mr Frank Boater, had died of a broken heart ' becauee his soheme was rejected. [A. Voice : "It is a pity Hobba does not die."] The speaker continued tho history of the London Commissioners of Drainage. Couln they imagine what the coat of thia had been? Not leBS than 30 millions aterling. If tho Drainage Board of Christehurch were to have their own way, he was afraid the citizens would wake up some day and find that their nostrums had cost a million at least. The speaker enumerated the various aystema of drainage that could be adopted. Mr Clark had recommended, as the best, the scheme of irrigation, but he (Mr Ollivier) objected to this system. Gentlemen of large experience had given the results of the system of irrigation, and those results were sufficient to justify its rejection. Mr Ollivier here quoted from a book "on tho water carriage of sewage" to ahow that tho cultivation of aewage land required a much larger expenditure than ordinary cultivation — quite five timea the amount. The aandhilJa were to be converted into a sewage farm — and! thia on the face of the experience of people in the Old Country. Mr Ollivier continued hia quotations, to show that tho products of sewage farms were difficult to be disposed of, and that the soil of sewage farms waa oharged with disease germa. He would not weary them with remarks on precipitation, and caßting the Bewago into the sea, but he could point to Brighton, where the carrying of Bewage out to sea had proved a failure. He would not speak of the pneumatic system, but would say that the beßt ayatem was the perfected pan system— (hear) — which wae only the carrying out of the old system of the Mosaic times. The speaker quoted the 23rd chapter of Deuteronomy, hia remarks being greeted with laughter and applause. The subject was a serious one, and not to be laughed at. The armies of England had a similar eystem for purifying their campß, and practically this was the system which he had insisted upon for these years, and which would be the ; only practicable system for many years to come. Mr Ollivier then referred to the letter of Dr Bakewell, in reply to the lecture of Professor Hutton, pointing out the danger of pouring liquid sewage on to the sandhills through the latent disease germa exiating in it. If men of large acientific experience aaid this, were their warnings to be ignored, and the people of Chrißtchurch and their children to be poisoned by certain persons who thought themselves wiser than anyone else. The object of thia meeting waa to protest against the Drainage Board's " Permissive Bill " as it waa called. Twelve months ago a compulsory Bill had been sought to be introduced into Parliament on the recommendation of Mr Clark. The Board knew that without the paßsing of that Act they would be liable at common law to an action for damages if they carried out their scheme. Public protests had been made against such abominable power being given to the Board. All that was wanted was a surface system of liquid aewage, by off -take sewers, and thence to the estuary. As to a system of water carriage of excreta, that was premature at present. The opponents of the Board were told that they knew nothing of the subject and ahould tako a back seat. He did not like a back seat, and had declined to take it. He had told the gentlemen of the Board that so long as he and hia friendß lived they ahould never have the power they Bought. Then the Board meekly said that they would not press the matter, if it were made clear that the citizens did not desire it. In an incredibly short space of time 2500 signatures had been obtained to a petition against the Bill, and this convinced the sapient members of the Board that the ratepayers were hostile to tho Bill, and they withdrew it. He had felt inclined to clutch the hands of his friends the members of the Board, when they thus gave way, supposing that they had abandoned their scheme ; but now he found tbat another Bill was coming forward called a "Permissive Bill." To his astonishment he found that thia Permiasive Bill was meant to give the Board power to graap everything from the ratepayers, and to make them the Board's humble servants. It was useless for the Board to attempt to throw dust into his eyes, for he had a book containing a record of the history of the drainage scheme from ita com. mencement. JVo longer ago than May 11 the Chairman of the Board had stated that the matter had been left in the hande of the ratepayers, and that if it waa made clear that the majority of the people objected, the Board would abandon the Bill. Could anything be more abominable aophiatry ? Only the previous day it bad been stated that the Board would prevent anything but puro artesian water going anywhere excepting through pipe sowers connecting with the drainago system. Were the ratepayers going to allow thia to be done ? (No, no.) If the Board dared to send their Bill tc the House, it should be rejected with acorn and contempt, and the member who took charge of it should be told that he falsely represented tho peoplo of Christehurch. (Applause.) They were told that copies of the Bill could be seen and that information could be got from them ; but what would the ratepayers say if Messrs Stevens, Richardeon and Andrews treated them in the same way. Would they not eay to them ; " You do not represent us ; you are a perfect fraud." (Oheera.) Comparing the old Bill with the new, ho would bo hansed if he could aay whioh ho thought was the best. (Laughter.) God bless my soul, the power might just as well be given to five thousand as tc five, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. He was afraid that he was occupying too much of their time. [A Voice : " Let them have it.J He would say a few worde as to the cost of the scheme. Mr Clark had said that dBISQ^S was to covet the wholo expense. That was for a population of 13,000. [A Voice: 30,000.] He did not care, he would say 20,000, or give them any number they liked. In Coventry, with 40,000 people, the total cost waa £132,300, and the annual charge was £11,061, or a rate of 3a 9d in the £. In Birmingham, with a population of 350,000, the cost waa £126,174, and the annual charge wae £22,460, or la BJd a-head. In Bradford, with a population of 163,000, the total charge waa £63,618, and the annual charge was £6,276. Mr Hobbs, .on the previous day, had said that £60,000 had been spent outside Mr Clark's scheme, including £18,000 for the purchase of the outfall drain. That showed how the money had been going, Tho speaker quoted from the Board's statement, showing that at one meeting the following sums were apportioned as fairly chargeable :— To Chriatchurch, £67,788 ; to Sydenham, £19,464; to Avon, £17,240; to Heathcote, £5304 ; and to Riccarton, £604. But a fortnight later these sums had been altered as follows : —To Chrißtchurch, £5 1,620; to Sydenham, £18,000; to Avon, £18,000; to Heathcote, £8292 ; and to Riccarton, £604. How could thia change be accounted for ? The cost of the pumping station, &0., would be £74,080, and when the preaent contracta were completed £171,939 of the £200,000 loan would have been apent, leaving a balance of only £28,060. The Board had apportioned certain Buma for pipes in Sydenham, Heathcote and Chrißtchurch, but Sydenham and Heathcote would not have the pipes, and if Christehurch did right it would refuse them also. The Board aaid they wanted about £50,000more,but he could aeo that they would want at least £60,000, if not £100,000. Mr Ciark had estimated tho annual cost at £16,000, but ho (Mr Ollivier) believed it would be £20,000 if not more. The sandhills would have all to be levelled. The speaker reiterated that the only system waa tlie pan aystem — a perfect pan ay stem, and not a system of kerosene tins. (Obeera.) The City Council had made an excellent reform by which the charge to the citizena would be reduced from £4500 to" £1350 a year. (Applause.) He remembered his own town at Home, where formerly £700 a year waa paid for the removal of rubbish, &c, and now £1500 was being received for it. The timo would come when, instead of having to pay, the oity would receive at least £2000 a year from the disposal of tho sewage. Mr Ollivier went on to point out that tho oxI penaea of connection with the sowers in the auburba would average £40 to £50, and aftor relating an amusing anecdote, ooncluded by moving the following resolution : — " Thia meeting pledges itself to do all in ita powor lo* prevont tho passing of the Drainago Bill which the Drainago Board bus announced its intention to ask Parliament to sanction, and requests that tho members for the district bo respectfully asked to oppose tho inIroducti >n of the same. It also recommends l!it> "ignaturo of potitionß to Parliament, praying lor the rejection of the Bill." (Cheers.) Mr Treadwell seconded tho resolution. It reply to a question, Mr Ollivier t-u'.d that ho considered that no system of oxcreta sewago could be carried out without an expensive water system, cc> .ing

amwHmmwcßßßmw&HQmmmmßmemwimama^mammtmmmeßmmßummm £30,000 or £40,000, or porhaps moro. Mr Ollivier then referred to Mr Harman' 8 letter, to take no notico of which, he said, would perhap* bo considered discourteous on Hho part of the meeting. He read the letter, which was greeted with groans. Mr Ollivier said tho proposal -6f Mr Harman was a reversal of ordinary proceedings. Ifc waa the place of fcho Board 'to come to the meeting, and not to ask the ratepayers to humbly bow the knee and go to the little pokey hole fchey called their office. He (Mr Ollivier) would suggest thafc a cocferenco of delegatea from each district should meet and diacußS the whole question with the Drainage Board in a miniature Parliament, the decision of a majority of which should bp considered final. If a conference of the two Houses of Parliament, aa proposed by tho Premier, was not beneath tho dignity of the Upper House, bo a conference of this kind should not be beneath the dignity of the Drainage Board. But what was wanted now waa rest, and no further dipping into tho pockots of fcho ratepayers. (Ohet-rs.) The Chairman put the resolution to the meeting, and it was carried unanimously. Mr F. Jones moved — " That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to the Hon the Colonial Secretary, and to the Drainage Board, and that the Chairman be requested to sign the -eamo on behalf of tho meeting." Mr Binatead seconded the motion, which was unanimously agreed to. A vote of thanks to the chair, moved by Mr Ollivier, was carried by acclamation ; and three hearty cheers for Mr John Ollivier closed the meeting.