Page:Item 5 1853.pdf/73

re-elected to the Council, and it was possible that he entertained a little spirit of retaliation – or to express oneself more charitably – it might be only a desire to convince the Board of Health and the burgesses that there were local surveyors with ingenuity other than the one who during his own absence had been eulogistically patronized. Mr. Putland desired to modify the drainage plans in several particulars, and had placed on the agenda four separate notices to that effect. But, after all the details of the scheme had been so thrashed out in debate, it required that Mr. Putland’s modifications should have some very strong points to get them adopted. These, when compared with Mr. Gant’s plans, after approval by the General Board and additional recommendation by another competent authority, did not appear to have those requisite strong points. After much pro and con the meeting was adjourned for further discussion, which turned out to be an extremely lengthy one, during which, among other questions put to Mr. Putland, were had he taken any levels, and had he any drawings or sections in support of his suggested alterations? The answer was “No!” and here, then, was one weak point in his contention. In addressing the Council at an adjourned meeting, Coun. Putland said he could not sit and vote for an expenditure on works which he did not approve. His object was to simplify the work in the eyes of the public. The drainage had assumed an aspect which did not belong to it. It was a simple matter in itself, but by calling in a consulting engineer who had spent thirty days over the plans the drainage was made to have a fictitious appearance. He wanted to show the town that thousands of pounds might be saved in the mode of carrying it out. He had no popularity to gain, and if he had any private interest to serve, he should have stayed out of the Council that he might tender for the work. A number of questions being put by Mr. Gant to Coun. Putland, the latter’s replies did not appear at all convincing, and after a lengthy discussion, Coun. H. N. Williams moved as an amendment that after the consideration which had been given to the subject, the Board saw no reason to make any alterations in the plans. Coun. Jas. Beck, in seconding, said Mr. Putland must present a very strong case in throwing those plans overboard. He (Coun. Beck) put the Surveyor and Mr. Braithwaite in one scale, and Mr. Putland in another, and found Mr. Putland too light [Laughter]. The amendment was carried, and Coun. Putland’s propositions were consequently rejected. His principal objection to the drainage plans was, as he contended, that the main sewer at the east end was too low, but it was shewn that at a less depth, about 20 houses, with basements, could not be drained, and would be obliged to have receptacles such as would be directly contrary to the Act. At the second adjourned meeting (Dec 15th) Coun. Putland was again very persistent in fault-finding, and not a little snappish when contradicted. He said that certain streets which required draining were not so entered on the plans, -