The Patriotic Funds.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15512, 12 February 1916, Page 8

The Patriotic Funds.

The attitude of the Government to-

wards the various Patriotic Funds "was tho subject of two Ministerial statements in yesterday's paper, which are worth contrasting. The Hon. Mr Russell, who is mainly, if not wholly, responsible for the general and deeprooted suspicion that the Government arc casting greedy eyes on these funds, se'. himself to explain hi 3 quarrel with the Auckland AVar Belief Association, lie refused to incorporate the Association until it eliminated from its rules tlu- scale of rates of relief which it had decided upon. This scale certainly looks meagre, and its meagreness was

discussed by the Minister in a heavily

ironical manner, and in something like that hostile spirit in which he attacked the local Belgium Fund. The

reason for his refusal to incorporate the

Association until the rule objected to was removed v.as stated by Mr Russell to be tho unwillingness of the Government to take the responsibility of "en- •' dorsing - ' the Association's scale of relief. The Prime Minister made a ; much more dignified statement. He j admitted, in quite the right spirit, the rights of the Association a nd similar bodies, and expressly declared that the Government does not intend to do more than see that the funds are used for the purpose for which they have been collected, and are administered without parsimony or waste. He sees no reason why the Government and the Patriotic Associations should not work together. Mr Massey's statement will be welcomed by those concerned in managing the Patriotic Funds, and it will do much to remove tho bad impression which his colleague has created in the public mind. Nevertheless, Mr Masscy does not appear quite to realise tho implications of even his own reasonable and temperate explanation. "What, it is sure to be asked at the conlerenco next week, do the Government mean by ''parsimony" and "waste" in the administration of these funds? Where do the Government derive tho right, and the capacity, to say that any given scale of payments is '"parsimoni- " nus" or '"wasteful," as the ease may

be;- We do not for a moment suggest that they are wanting in that right, and in that capacity : we ask the questions in all candour, and out of anxiety t-> have the whole business settled on a basis of sound principle. "When a Minister says that the Auckland scale of supplementary relief is grossly inadequate, he must have in his mind, if lie is not talking at 'random, some clear idea of what would be au adequate scale. "What ecale of relief, then, really is adequato in supplement of the pensions provided by law? The higher that scale, the less adequato the statutory pension scale is thereby declared to be. We could understand tho Government if they said: "Wo arc pro- " viding statutory pensions on the high'"est scalc that our judgment of the "Treasury's present and future condition will allow us to fix. Wo ticYcr- " thelcss admit that it is desirable that " the public, by voluntary action, shall

supplement those payments, and we " shall be glad to see them do so." lhit w-* cannot understand the Government when they propose to offer an opinion as to what tho supplementary efforts of the public ought to amount to. The Government's function is to do £ho best with the public money under their control. If they havo an opinion about pensions other than that expressed in its Act, they should embody that opinion in tho Act in a practical manner by altering tho statu tor j* pensions scale. The best thing the Government can do is to stick t.« their last, and simply be grateful for any voluntary assistance rendered t) tho soldiers. They are not required to hold or to offer any opinion about tho rate at which that assistance is rendered. Should it bo found that tho fund in any district is being so administered that it is likely to outlast the beneficiaries, the Government will be able to intervene, with the public behind them.