The Wairarapa Daily. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1879.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 303, 30 October 1879, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1879.

At the meeting of the Borough Council of Masterton on Tuesday last a question of considerable sanitary importance was raised, The Inspector of Nuisances reported that a creek running through the centre of the Borough was polluted in various ways, and the testimony of several members of the Council who spoke on the subject went to prove that the stream in question was simply an open sewer. That an open sewer in the most thickly-popu-lated part of the town in hot weather is liable to breed pestilence and to create an epidemic no sane person can doubt, and it is evident that now the matter lnlsbeen formally brought under the notice of Councillors a grave responsibility rests upon them to avert promptly and speedily a danger which may any week threaten-the town. We have no reason to believe that the liiMWiililliiliwiiii

Council ignores this responsibility, or is blind to the possible consequences of an open sewer in the heart of the borough, 'J he question with the Council was not whether a nuisance existed and should be dealt with, but how it should be dealt with. Should it be abated at the cost of the ratepayers generally, or should the owners of property adjoining the stream be compelled to abate all nuisance. This phase oi the question is almost one of minoi importance. The great consideration is that of preserving life and health; tha subsidiary one that of pounds, shillings, and pence. The latter one is of importance, but we trust it will not be allowed to overshadow or put in the background tho more vital point. If owners of property can be made to keep the stream clean and sweet we do not see any objection to this course, but we doubt whether tho Council can compel a man through whoso property the stream passes to remove, say, the cress, which obstructs its passage. Can the Council prove legally that watercress is a nuisance ? if not, one man might stand out and block the stream while his neighbors above and below labored in vain to purify the creek. As far as we can see the Council has no legal right under the Act to compel owners of land adjacent to the creek to clear it out, and that if it resorts to this alternative it will fail to abate the nuisance. It would, perhaps, be a more speedy and effective course for the Council to do the work itself, and though this would entail some expense the residents interested are unquestionably entitled to protection from the Council in this matter, and as large ratepayers have a legitimate claim on the public pnrse. We care little, however, whether the creek be cleansed out of private or public funds so long as it be promptly and efficiently purified, and trust that the committee appointed to report on the matter will be able to recommend a course which will attain this extremely necessary end.