QUESTION OF DOMICILE

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 41, 17 August 1917, Page 3

QUESTION OF DOMICILE

ADMINISTRATION OF RELIEF

FUNDS

WHICH IS THE BEST SYSTEM?

Reciprocity among the various war relief societies in the matter of .administrating funds was considered, by the conference'of societies yesterday, when Mr. V. J. Lamer (Auckland) moved:— "That the present system. of obtaining refunds from patriotic ; societies in c6nnection with returned' soldiers who ' enlisted in districts outside the sphere of operations of _ the society to whom the returned soldier makes application for assistance be discontinued, and in lieu thereof associations ishall meet the needs and assist returned soldiers who may apply 'to them and have been domiciled in or' enlisted from other districts in exactly ithe same manner as would be done had the soldier been domiciled or enlisted from their ' district.: This ■ will ensure prompt assistance" to all applicants, and will enable each society to deal promptly and effectively with applications." There were/four other motions on the order paper, dealing with, "the same subjedt. ■■■' '■ ■....■■ Mr. Lamer outlined' tho difficulties which the Auckland .Society had experienced ■ under the present system, by which a society's responsibilities were fixed by the domicile of the soldier three months prior to his enlistment. The scheme was absolutely unbusinesslike, and in many cases quite unworkable. It created friction, too. It'had to be remembered, also, thai a Christchurch man did not fight for Christohurch, nor did an Aucklander receive his wounds for Auckland. The claims ithey had were national, and they could say what they liked, but the societies were national. There was grumbling and discontent among the soldiers now, and unless something, was done* the funds would be taken over jby the Government. It was not a question as to what one society Vould gain or lose. A very broad view should be-taken of the whole question. Mr. Cyrus Williams (Canterbury) supported the existing aTrangemerit. Under it; he said, no man would suffer.

Mr.-J. Nash (Palmenston North) said that the matter was a very serious one for PaLmerstoti Nortli. He favoured trie definition of. domicile being domicile three months' prior to enlistment.

, Mr. A. Lever (Westpoxt) opposed the Auckland remit, stating that smfill societies could not possibly foot the bill in all cases which came before them. It was, all right for Auckland to talk about doing ,it, but .less wealthy societies vjould soon bo bankrupt if they were asked to give effect to the suggestion which had been placed' before the conference. ■:....', \ ''■;■■•,'■

' Th« Hon. J. T. Paul (Dunedin) said that the res-ponsibilityi of the various societies was to take care of: the soldiers and their dependents. They, hadl to be ; most careful 'm the distribution, of relief—-careful in the interests of the men themselves. The present system was working entirely satisfactorily, and no disputes; had come before, the Advisory. Board so far. 7 He thought that Auckland was acting under a misapprehension. He did,not anticipate any trouble in the: future,' ft tn«y applied the rules of common-sens© instead of hard and fast rules.

Mr. L. 0. H. Trlpp (Wellington) stated that if Mr. Larner's motion wae carried it 1 would fall very heavily on Wellington. Figures; showed that for three months itW Wellington Association bad expended £664, lls lOd' on behalf of outside ■ societies, whereas only £85 13s had been expended by those, societies on behalf of Wellington.' ' The Auckland renHt was lost on the voices, and the conference finally adopted .the .fo.llowirip moiion from Canterbury :—"That the , recommendation of the Advisory Board {.hat the domicile of the soldier or sailor, for three months prior to. ■enlistment' shall determine the responsibility of the respectdye societies, and in the event of the soldier or sailor not having resided in the' district for three ljiontlu the,place.of enlietment to determine the responsibility, be adopted."