Water Pollution 1902

Dandenong Water Supply Polluted at Heany Park by Shaggy Dog

THE MONBULK WATER SUPPLY
POLLUTION WINKED AT
COMMISSIONERS CHANGE FRONT
WHO PULLED THE ROPES?

Some three months ago it was reported to the members of the Dandenong Water Supply Trust that persons were in the habit of bathing in the service reservoir in the police paddocks and otherwise polluting the water which hundreds of the Dandenong people use for drinking and other domestic purposes. The commissioners communicated with Senior-Constable Taylor with regard to the matter, and he deputed Mounted-Constable Thomson to take action. That officer, with Turncock Wallis, set a watch, and on a certain Sunday caught two lads swimming a collie dog in the reservoir. At the meeting of the Trust, held on 24th November, the following occurred:

“From Mounted-Constable Thompson, stating that with Turncock Wallis he had visited the reservoir in the police paddock and found two youths named Booth and Sutherland there, and they allowed a fawn-coloured dog to bathe in the reservoir. He recommended that Booth be prosecuted as he was old enough to know better. – On motion of Coms. R.G.Keys and Heywood, a letter of thanks to be conveyed to Constable Thomson for his action. – On the motion of Coms. Masters and Hemmings, Booth to be prosecuted.”

Since then a powerful agency appears to have been at work. Shortly after the Trust meeting referred to above, at which Com. Hemmings (who as chairman, was very pronounced in denouncing the conduct of the lads, and urging a prosecution) sent a written notice of motion to the secretary of the Trust to the following effect:

“That the resolution deciding that the young man Booth be prosecuted, should be rescinded.”

This was dealt with at the meeting of the Trust on Monday last. The Chairman of the Trust, Commissioner Hemmings, in moving his notice of motion, said that since last meeting he had made inquiries into the case, and found a different complexion put upon the affair. Some people had been in the habit of bathing in the reservoir, and this was a very serious offence, and it was such persons they wished to prosecute. The youths referred to were in the vicinity of the reservoir on the day in question, and a dog belonging to one of them went into the water. Any person’s dog might do the same, and he did not think Booth should be prosecuted. Com. Greaves said that even his dog might have gone into the reservoir, in spite of his efforts. He did not think the lads knew they were doing wrong. Com Keys said the lads had gone back a second time, and swam the dog in the reservoir. The secretary read the constable’s report that Booth and Sutherland were at the reservoir with the dog and swam it on two occasions. Com Hutton said that at the last meeting Com. Hemmings was one of the strongest supporters of prosecution. Com. Heywood said the bathers alone should be prosecuted, according to Com. Hemmings, but it was just as bad that dogs should be allowed to swim. If we let these offenders off, would they let him off also? Com. Hemmings: There are notices up now, but there were none then. Com. Hutton: Yes, but the dogs can’t read the notices. He would oppose the rescinding of the motion. The case was not a criminal one, and the penalty would be a small one. Com. Heywood quite endorsed all Com. Hutton had said, and urged that this lad was guilty of swimming his dog on two occasions, and if they condoned the first offence they discovered, he would like to know where they were going to commence? If they did not assist the police who went to some trouble to sheet home the offence, and helped the Trust, there would be no more cases reported, and Tom, Dick and Harry could go there and bathe and swim dogs. Com. Hemmings explained why he had changed his mind from last meeting. – Com. Jago said there were no notices up at the time of this offence, and the case must fail. Com. Heywood said notices had been put up, and also advertised in the papers. The Turncock said there were part of the old notices up now, and they had been shot up etc. Com. Jago: Those are the fellows to catch. Com. Hemmings thought that the Centre Riding councillors should be able to manage their own affairs without the interference of outside commissioners. Comms. Hutton, Heywood and Keys protested against the chairman’s remarks. They did not use the water, but they wished to protect the ratepayers of Dandenong who did use it. A desultory conversation ensued, and Com Hutton said, it’s no use wasting time, Mr Chairman; put it to the meeting; you were one of the strongest in favour of the prosecution at the last meeting. The motion was then put and the voting was four to four, and the chairman gave his casting vote in favour of the motion. Senior-constable Taylor said in the event of further cases being reported what was he to do? He would not send his subordinate out there again to be made a fool of . Constable Thomson had gone out to the reservoir (neglecting other duties) and spent the whole day watching, and now they let the culprit off. If they wanted the police in future for such work they would have to apply to the Chief Commisioner of Police, because he certainly would not take action.

The voting was as follows: For the Motion – Coms. Hemmings, Masters, Jago and Greaves. Against – Coms. Hutton, Heywood, R.G. and W.G. Keys.

(We may state that this extraordinary change of front was not brought about by Brooks’ relatives, and more will be heard of the case. There were nine commissioners present at the previous meeting and eight at Monday’s meeting. It requires six votes to rescind the previous motion, a fact the chairman appeared ignorant of when he declared the motion carried.)

Dandenong Advertiser 22 January 1903

A meeting of the Dandenong Water Trust was held on Monday, but there was no further reference to the recent pollution case, in which two lads were concerned in the alleged swimming of a dog in the reservoir in the police paddocks. No doubt the electors will remember this “bottling up” business at the next election. We don’t want any Dives and Lazarus business around here, and there should be no distinction between the rich and the poor in such cases. The Trust, as a body, passed a resolution to prosecute; and another resolution complimenting their officer and the police on their action in sheeting home a case, and at the very next meeting they resolve (illegally in our opinion) on the casting vote of the chairman (Commissioner John Hemmings) to rescind the former resolution! Now, what inference does the poor, suffering tax-payer deduct from this action?

At the meeting of the Dandenong Water Trust on Monday, a proposal was made by the chairman to purchase a block of over 100 acres of land near the Monbulk reservoir. We have heard some whispers from the public about this alleged “piece of business” as some of them have been pleased to term it, and may have something further to say later on. The affairs of the Trust have been mismanaged from its very inception, and we advise the commissioners to secure titles for the land already acquired before rushing into the sage chairman’s idea to pile up more expense and put an extra tax on the long-suffering ratepayers. If the Trust starts purchasing to prevent pollution, they may as well make up their minds to purchase about 4000 acres, fence it in with a 7 foot corrugated fence, with a barbed wire on top, and leave openings at convenient intervals for young men with rough, shaggy dogs to enter and amuse themselves with bathing exercises. They might also supply the caretaker with bathing suits, to be hired out at a moderate cost, which would help defray the said official’s salary!

———————————————————————————————————

|