View report page

view that " it is only necessary to show, as a matter of expert
opinion, that the defect" (e.g., absence of a trap) " involves
danger to health without the necessity of proving injury
to health arising therefrom." Counsel, moreover, having
received a copy of this communication, stated that he
" entirely agreed " with me ; it was " sufficient if there is
danger, without injury,to health." It" had not occurred "to him
(lie had not been told)," that anything turned on the distinction "
(between the words " dangerous " or " injurious "), though, from
my point of view, it is vital to the point at issue.
My views on the subject were set out in the aforementioned
communication to the Law and Parliamentary
Committee, and in a communication to the Sanitary Committee,
dated November 12th. For the information of your
Vestry, moreover, and in view of an impending debate on the
subject, I prepared and submitted a " Memorandum on trapping
of house-drains from the sewer," in which I gave a history of
the proceedings, which, in connection with the Instructions to
the Inspectors, your Vestry had taken in the matter, commencing
in the year 1885.
Counsel's opinion having been considered by the Sanitary
Committee, they read it as favouring their own interpretation
of the law, with the result that they still issue notice for the
trapping of a drain only in the case of proved nuisance, or
after the occurrence of infectious disease in the house. They
also submitted a report on the subject to your Vestry (26th
November) as follows : —
" Your Committee, having exhaustively discussed the
question submitted to Counsel, have passed a resolution
expressing the opinion that it is not desirable to cause a drain
to be opened for the purpose of inserting therein an intercepting
trap when the drain appears to be sound and in
working order.