XI 



example of those large centres, she would 

 be the only capital city without a proper 

 drainage system for the disposal of organic 

 refuse. There were three objections which 

 had been urged against the metropolitan 

 drainage scheme:— (l)It would cost too much 

 money. (2) If the outlet be at Macquarie 

 Point, the River Derwent would be 

 polluted, and the health and comfort of 

 the residents of Sandy Bay and Lower 

 Queenborough would be interfered with. 

 (3) The water supply was inefficient. As 

 to the first objection he believed the cost 

 would be money well spent. They were 

 assured that it would not involve a 

 higher rating than the present sanitary 

 rate ; but if an extra penny had to be 

 paid, he believed the citizens would not 

 grumble. The present system entailed a 

 rating of 5d. in the £1, which gave an 

 annual amount of €4,365. This amount, 

 however, did not represent the actual cost 

 to the ratepayers and owners of property. 

 Owners were continually called upon to 

 provide proper drainage to their houses, 

 and the cost of this, to his knowledge, 

 in many instances had been very 

 great. Unless a comprehensive scheme 

 such as was now proposed was intro- 

 duced, the present patchwork and 

 expensive system must continue. The 

 present cobble gutters were, in many 

 instances, quite good enough to carry 

 away storm water, but wholly unfit 

 to carry sewage. If, therefore, these 

 gutters had to be taken up, and 

 cement or cube stone substituted, the 

 expense would go a long way towards 

 the drainage scheme. He did not mean to 

 say that the cobble gutters were to be 

 allowed to remain in the centre and more 

 populous parts of the city. It would be 

 desirable to have the side channels 

 in the well-formed and busy streets 

 nicely made, and attractive to the 

 eyes of visitors, even with under- 

 ground drainage. Labour, in the way 

 of scavenging and street-flushing would be 

 to a great extent lessened, and all this 

 meant money. They were informed that 

 the drainage scheme would cost £75,000 — 

 £45,000 for sewers and £30,000 for house 

 connections, the cost of which, with house 

 fittings, were to be capitalised. They were 

 told that the money could be borrowed, 

 under a Government guarantee, at 3 per 

 cent., and a sinking fund of 1 per 

 cent, to be added. Repairs were put 

 down at 1 per cent. Labour, flush- 

 ing, and administration at tl,000 per 

 annum, so these figures came out thus : — 

 Interest on £75,000, at 3 per cent., £2,250 

 per annum ; sinking fund, at 1 per cent., 

 £750 ; repairs, at 1 per cent., £750 ; flush- 

 ing and administration per annum, £1,000. 

 Total coht per annum, £4,750. The ratable 

 value of all the properties in the area, in- 

 cluding Crown property, was at present 



£230,000, on which a rate of 5d. in the £1 would 

 amount to £4,790. It was evident, therefore, 

 that the present rate of 5d. was correct, 

 and would give a little more than was 

 necessary. Dr. Sprott then contrasted 

 this with the present cost of typhoid fever, 

 referring to what each case cost in medical 

 assistance, nursing, extras, and loss of 

 earnings, to say nothing of the death of 

 bread-winners rand those nearest and 

 dearest. As to the allegations that if the 

 sewage was discharged into the Derwent 

 at Macquarie Point it would cause river 

 pollution and nuisances, he held that it 

 would not be so. Sanitary engineers, includ- 

 ing Mr. Napier Bell, had said it would not 

 be a nuisance,and regarded assertions about 

 nuisances being created as exaggerations. 

 A large number of the most pleasant towns 

 in England discharged their sewage into 

 the sea, or into the harbour in front of the 

 town, without any ill-effect. Much of 

 lower Hobart sewage, including a great 

 number of water-closets, already dis- 

 charged into the harbour. He quoted Mr. 

 Napier Bell's report on this point. Because 

 certain matters, such as apple peelings, 

 stalks of cabbage, driftwood, shavings, 

 et3., could be seen on the shores of Sandy 

 Bay, it did not follow that sewage 

 would be carried in the same way. 

 It would be discharged into deep 

 water, and would at once mix. Should it 

 be found, however, that the river became 

 polluted by the discharge of the sewage, it 

 would be quite competent for the Drainage 

 Board to have the sewage purified before 

 discharging, but he did not think any 

 process of the kind would be necessary. 

 He referred to the rivulet's discharges and 

 the numerous discharges of closets, of 

 slops, etc., into the river now. And not 

 into the current,but into the shallow water 

 at the margin. All that would, with a 

 proper system of drainage, be ob- 

 viated. It might be well, in taking the 

 vote of the ratepayers, to ask them to also 

 declare whether they were in favour of 

 emptying at Macquarie Point or incurring 

 the extra expense of £40,000 in going to One 

 Tree Point. Perhaps the objection raised 

 with most force had reference to the water 

 supply. The present supply was 63 gal. 

 per head per day. In April, 1896, the 

 Director of Waterworks reported that 

 200,000 gal. were to be accounted for by 

 leakage or illegal use, which meant 6i gal. 

 to each person for water-closet flus&ing. 

 During last summer, the driest time for 

 25 years, the supply was 50 gal. per head 

 per day. That should be sufficient for all 

 purposes. Sydney had carried on an under- 

 ground sewerage system for nine years with 

 between 32 and 42 gal. per head. Munich 

 did so with a supply of 33 gal. per head ; 

 Brisbane, 33 ; London, 28 ; Liverpool, 19 ; 

 Southampton, 35 ; Sheffield, 20 ; Edin- 

 burgh, 35 ; and Paris, 31. Seventy-two 



