DRAINAGE ROAD AMENDMENT BILL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4415, 19 June 1882, Page 3

DRAINAGE ROAD AMENDMENT BILL.

TO THE KDITOH OF THK STAB. Sib, — The opponents of this Bill are at their wits' end to make out a case against it. The principle clause in the Bill provides that we shall have the right to use that which is our own and and for which we have to pay, whether we exorcise that right or not. The counter petition which has been dished up is a milk and watery production of the sam» tort as the oratory of a certain old gentlemen, which is remarkable for quantity rather than quality. This counter petition asserts that "the system proposed by the Drainage Board is inconsistent with tho present requirements" of the district." ' May I ask what 85 stem has the Drainage Board proposed ? As I understand the position — they have recently succeeded to the management of works not now under proposal for execution, but actually performed and under contract. As a matter of fact tho Drainage Board desiro to place the works at the service of those who desire to utilize them — to wit, ourselves, "the ratepayers ! " It further makes tho unfair statement, "it will be attended with a very large additional expenditure and consequent burthen from taxation." The writer of thiß paragraph knows quite well that nothing of tho kind will follow tho passing of tho Amendment Bill ; because the cost of making the connections petitioned for, will be borno by tho persons who make them, and therefore will not increaso the "burthen from taxation." The next charge is a curiosity in its way, "that a considerable section of the ratepayers will be excluded f.-om any participation in the imaginary bonefitß resulting from the adoption of the scheme." This must have been written on a stimulus of Irish, whiskey: it smacks of Hibornia! Will tho writer please quote tho money value of a loss sustained by nonparlicipation in bonefits whioh are, as stated by him, only imaginary? But on the other hand, suppose ratepayers value the advantages of the proposed connections as being roal indeed, and euceoeßf ully aßserb their right to them, wherein do they do their neighbours any wronp. When tho first part of tho city becomes connected with tho sowers tho problem will bo fairly on the way to solution : tho rest of tho community will be placed in tho position to judgo whether they wiil follow suit or not.

Tho statement that, '"it is entirely speculative," is no doubt literally tiuo ti> a mind prejudiced beyond redemption, or incapable or unwilling to roaliso enginooring fuels. Thoao who study tho welfare of the district condemn tho action taken by tho individuals who aro endeavouring to plnre obstacles in the way of thoso who nro anxious to utilise tho drainage works. — I am, &c, RATEPAYEB.