The Dominion. WEDNESDAY MAY 27, 1908. CHARITY ABUSED.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 208, 27 May 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY MAY 27, 1908. CHARITY ABUSED.

The appointment of a lady inspector to inquire into the methods of local bodies in distributing' charitable. aid. has abundantly justified. !Wllen attention was first called to the unusual character of some of the goods purchased 'by some of the people in receipt of'charitable aid, there was a chorus of protest from the local bodies against, the suggestion that there had been any laxity of administration or any improper disposition of the funds. It was difficult to give 'any weight to those protests .in the face of the very , extraordinary examples of mis-ppent poor relief which had been reported, and the further reports of Hiss Kiek, culminating in that which she presented yesterday, ,place it beyond all doubt that some improvement of the present system of distributing aid is urgently required. Amongst the earlier examples, of unjustifiable relief was the case,of a woman who, although she owned an interest of £600 in some property, and kept eight' lodgers, received a rent grant of ss. weekly. Another recipient of poor relief, drawing 10s. weekly, owned" a quarter-acre section and a four-roomed house, freehold. All kinds of curious things figured in the goods purchased on the " grocery orders " issued by some of the local bodies. Miss Kiek gave further examples yesterday to show that there is a very pernicious want of discrimination 'in the distribution o'f relief. A family of four have been allowed to purchase at - the ratepayers' expense no less than.226lbs. of sugar and 1751b5. of flour in three months. The daughter of one family dependent on charitable aid buys a £15 bicycle " bccauso the roads arc good'and I like riding." There is a humorous side to some of these cases, but the public that furnishes the £10,000 odd annually' disbursed by the Charitable Aid Board will not be inclined quite to appreciate tho fun of buying bicycles for honest poverty and setting up indigence with provisions sufficient to stand a year's siege. 'Complaint was made at yesterday's meeting of the Board that the publication of the interim reports in the newspapers might have obstructed Miss Kirk's inquiries by putting .people on their guard. .A stronger ground for complaint would have been the danger that the tales of high living might have caused a rush from all parts to participate in the luxuries of poverty. The administration of poor relief in England has yielded a stupendous mass of testimony to the danger of making poverty a ground for pampering, and it does little credit to tho local bodies concerned that Miss Kiek should have to lay down such an elementary rule as that a recipient of poor relief Hliould not receive enough to make him as com for table as those who depend upon themselves. Nothing will prevent "pauperisation" but the strictest observance of tlio rule that tho standard of comfort provided for people " on tho niton " must be kept a littlo below the iiUntliwd of comfort .of the poorest selfdopiindent person in tho community, Tliiil rule docs not, of course, apply to |,|i» nick or weakly poor. While there aro pooplo who will starvo boforo they aak for aid, and ovon some whoj, like

Dickens's Betty Higden, would carry for years, and keep intact in oven the cnicllcsfc straits, a sum sufficient to pay for their burial, there arc, unfortunately, only too many others who rely upon themselves only because the indolence that they prefer would entail a discomfort worse than work. Every system of public charity manufactures paupers to a certain extent, but by vigilance this vice of all such systems can be kept down to a'"minimum, fiaution in the dispensation of aid is imperative for other reasons than the necessity for preventing the growth of a class of able-bodied drones, able to sing the old pauper's song: Then drive away sorrow and bauish all care, For the State 1 it is bound to maintain us. Every penny that is misapplied is a penny stolen from the really necessitous. What will arouse the public indignation is the reflection that the lavish waste of the public money has taken place at the expense of the class that good nature desires to assist. The public would far more ? willingly contribute £10 if they were assured that the money would relieve necessitous and deserving cases, than £l if they suspected that some of it was going to the wrong people. No doubt, as Miss Kirk says, it is the system that is at faul(<. In Canterbury the same faults have been found in the present method of distributing poor relief. The secretary of the Wellington Benevolent Trustees in December lalst reported a most disturbing increaso in the issue of rations and in the amount expended in rents. If a great evil is to be checked a remedy must be found without delay. The system of' "elective local' relief committees" suggested by Miss Kiric should have useful results.' It is, if.we are not. misinformed, receiving strong advocacy in Victoria. The ?Charitable Aid Board must give the matter early attention. •