The Press. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18. 1888.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7232, 18 December 1888, Page 4

The Press. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18. 1888.

There is another point, in connection with the dispensing of charitable aid which we have not yet referred to, and which is in every way too important not to demand serious attention. TVe have reason for thinking that it has not been attended to by Boards in other parts of the country, and with regard to the United District Charitable Aid. Board, whose annual report we had lately the pleasure of presenting to our readers, we do not find the evidence we should like to have seen that it has been fully kept in view by them. The point in question is not whether the relief distributed is confined to persons who are, in the proper sense of the word, destitute, nor whether it is carefully limited to tlve actual necessities of the cases relieved. Assuming both these poiuts to be satisfactorily established, there is still a third—Are all other reasonable means exhausted for procuring the necessary relief for the destitute before drawing it from the public funds f A simple illustration will explain

what m mean ; and as we have the facts before us, we wish to say at once that our illustration is not taken from any case within the jurisdiction of the United District Board. A widow was, until lately, receiving rations, who was in the strictest sense of the word a destitute person. She was "unable to support herself by her own mean 3 or labour." She was also a deserving person, in the sense of being generally respected in the neighbourhood in which she lived. So much as this, and no more, probably, was made known to the Board by those who interested themselves in her behalf. But there were further facts which would readily have appeared upon inquiry, and which we think ought certainly to have been considered before the relief was allowed. These facts were, that while the widow undoubtedly could not support herself by her own means or labor, there were those upon whose means and labor she had an undoubted legal claim, and by whom she was at the time being supported in reasonable comfort. Her good conduct had obtained for her light employment, with residence rent free, light and firing, and a small salary. A child was earning forty pounds a year aud keep, and was undoubtedly in a position to afford material assistance both in the way of money and food. She had a son too, a single man, earning good wages, not far off. With the above facts before them we appeal to any of our readers whether this was a proper case for charitable aid? The point we wish to make is that it is an essential part of the duty of a Charitable Aid Board, before granting relief out of the public funds placed at its disposal, to niake it certain that the applicant has no relatives able to take the burden of his or her support upon their own shoulders.

The Boards, be it observed, have ample powers to do what we are suggesting. We are sure that any lawyer will advise them that the Destitute Persons Act of 1877 and their own Act. of 1885, taken together, are conclusive on this head. The Act of ISSS enacts (section 18) that the Board shall take all necessary steps for obtaining means to afford charitable aid. The Act of 1577, after denning a " destitute person" in tho terms we have already used, provides that the near relative or relatives of a destitute person, if of sufficient ability, shall be liable to support him or her in the manner in the Act specified. We then have the definition of the " near relative." It includes the father, stepfather, grandfather, mother, stepmother and grandmother, children (other than stepchildren), and brother of the destitute person. This affords, it will be seen, a tolerably wide field for inquiry, and when we add to the case we have already cited that we could have mentioned others in which persons were taken on to the fund whose married sons and daughters were well known to be living in their own houses, built on their own sections, free from mortgage, and in good work, we think it will be felt that inquiry into cases of this sort, with a view to proceedings under the Destitute Persons Act, promise to afford appreciable relief to the fund. That the cases to which we are referring are of wide range no oue, we think, will doubt who has any experience of the administration of charitable relief. None of those which we have mentioned are within the jurisdiction of the United District Board. But of the 475 cases, of which the annual report informs us, there is nothing on the face of the report to show that they may not, nearly all of them, be liable to the same observations. The 475 cases are thus classified. Widows, or widows with children, 134; deserted wives with children, 27 ; families of worthless, dissolute, disabled, imprisoned, or lunatic husbands, 63; aged infirm people, 116; women with illegitimate children, 14; temporary cases not yet classified, 4G; destitute, children boarded out, 65; infirm orj invalid persons boarded out, 10. Headl ing through the above list there is, wa think, hardly one of the cases, except! indeed tha fc of " destitute children boarded out," as to which the report affords any indication that the powers of the Act of 1877 have been brought into play before the funds of the Board itself have been drawn upon. We do not mean to assert that the Board have made no efforts in the direction we have indicated. If we remember correctly, cases have been brought before the Court which indicate that the Charitable Aid Board have, in some instances at least, put the law in operation. But what is required is fuller information on the subject than the report supplies.

We press this without hesitation, because it is no mere question—important as that question fairly is—of saving the pockets of the ratepayers. Money improperly or even injudiciously spent in Charitable Aid ia not merely money thrown away. It has notoriously a demoralising effect, both upon the actual recipients and those who in any way come within the influence of the unwise or improper distribution. A.t Home in old days it sapped the manliness of tbe English character. It has already begun to do so in our own colony. We must most respectfully warn the gentlemen who are concerned with the administration of charitable relief that the system of which they are in charge is upon its trial. It is not the general opinion that they have succeeded thus far in confining the relief granted to its legitimate objects. We are told certainly that the amount actually expended this year all through the colony is smaller than it was last. This goes but a very little way towards satisfying those who have had opportunities of judging how seriously larger it was last year than it ought to have been. What we know is that? rafter all done in the way of charitable societies aud institutions, voluntary gifts, and what not, the result has been to bring us at last face to face with the Rate Collector and the Consolidated- Fund. We grudge neither the rate nor the subsidy, so, long as we know that either or both are wanted. But we do object to have either the saving of thrift or the hardearned wage misapplied for the indulgence of the indolent or to pamper the dissolute. It is charged upon the present administration of the existing system that both these are something more than possible, and until there is evidence before the public that the powers of the Destitute Persp»v« Act

are generally and systematically acted on by the Charitable Aid Boards, there will arise a growing demand for a change which we confess we should regret. The Act, we believe, would be the better for amendment, but we should be glad of a longer experience before departing from the main lines on which it is founded.

The anticipated return of Mr. .Sauxderb for the Lincoln district seems to have created no small commotion. This is no more than was naturally to be expected. Mr. Saunders is a power, which, be it spoken with all respect, is precisely what the other members for North Canterbury are not. We speak of course of what is known in the House as the North Canterbury contingent. Time was when the Canterbury element in the House was admittedly looked up to by members from other districts as naturally and by right of pre eminence j qualified to rule. At the last election j all this was reversed. Neither their policy nor their personnel was such as to commend them to the good opinion of their fellow members. We do not say that they made no impression upon their fellow members, for, unluckily, the feeling of the House seemed to be that the Canterbury squad, as they came to be called, had neither the stamina nor the political information essential to any member who seeks to have weight there. They were looked upon as shaping their course, not in view of the intrinsic goodness or badness of any measure which they might be found to be supporting or opposing, but simply according to the effect which their speeches or votes might be expected to have on the safe retention of their own seats. This was freely spoken of them, and it was understood, moreover, that it was said by them of themselves. With such a reputation they inevitably dropped to their natural level—the hangers-on instead of the leaders of a party, a position which must inevitably be the lot of gentlemen who are in a perpetual fever about their seats. This, we say, was the unhappy character of the North Canterbury contingent. Members, Canterbury undoubtedly had and, still has, to whom we shall not be suspected of applying these observations. But these stood altogether outside of the ungallant band which we have been describing. It is alongside of these that Mr. Saunders will find himself as one of the forces of the House. At the late general election, although he failed to secure his own seat, there was no one among all the candidates who rendered more effective service to the cause of retrenchment and cessation of borrowing. Not only were his speeches of the highest class, but his letters were of the most telling character, and were read with keen interest by persons who did not specially occupy themselves with colonial politics. No wonder if the section of £iorth Canterbury members to whom we have been referring feel decidedly uncomfortable at the approaching advent of a colleague of so totally different an order from, themselves. We are sorry that we cannot say we have any comfort to offer, except, indeed, the comfort it must undoubtedly bring them to reflect that now at length one more valuable addition will be made to the number of members who may be expected to regain for Canterbury the political position which they themselves unfortunately have not had the capacity to preserve for her.