The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1895. THE CHARITABLE AID BOARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIII, Issue 10566, 28 January 1895, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1895. THE CHARITABLE AID BOARD.

TsiotrGiL.tho full text of the report of the Commission o£ Inquiry into the Charitable Aid Board’s management has not been published, we have before ua the gist of the Commissioners’ findings on the charges made against the Board and its officers. The report itself is, we understand, a somewhat bulky document, and from the character of the Commissioners and from the painstaking care they showed in going into the evidence laid before them in Christchurch, we are quite prepared to believe that the report will bn aa able and suggestive, as it is understood to be full. Its contents will, no doubt, be of great use to the Government in any measure of charitable aid reform that may be in preparation. Meanwhile, all we have to comment upon ia a bare Summary of the Commissioners’ findings. This is by no means sensational.

As to the two gravest accusations, one is distinctly negatived and the 1 verdict on the other is “ not proven.” Mr Norris and his salary are sustained, but one or two items of expenditure are pronounced excessive. With regard to the accusation of in the quantity of rations supplied, the Commissioners find fault with the periodical dole, butondorse the Board’s arrangements in other respects. The not result of all , this is not by any mekns what certain very outspoken critics of the Board expected or predicted, but there is no reason for regretting the appointment of the Royal Commission or the expense and labour involved in the prosecution of its inquiry. Public opinion was much exercised and disturbed as to the Board’s administration, and wo therefore considered ife right that an independent and searching outside examination should be held, The result explains tbo unwillingness of the Government to appoint the Commission until definite chargee had been formulated. Prom one or two of the Commissioners’ findings it is safe to assume either thalt rumoured evidence was not finally forthcoming, or that when tendered it was not thought sufficiently sound to outweigh positive and emphatic denials. On the other side ifc ■ia clear that Mr Martin and Mrs Neill have not found the Board’s arrangements faultless. Specific errors, both financial and in respect of the food dole, have been pointed out, and these ought to be set right without delay. The moral of the episode seems to us to be that Charitable Aid Boards ought to be more directly responsible to the people, and that female relieving-officers should be appointed in all large centres of population. It is obvious that there should have been no need for setting up so extraordinary a tribunal as a Royal Commission to find out what this Commission has discovered. There ought to have been some local means for exerting sufficient pressure _by public opinion to get the salaries, doles, and conduct of the Board’s officers looked into, without bringing officials armed with special powers from Wellington. I£ local government ia to be anything but a species of small bureaucracy the electors of each locality should be able where general discontent prevails to discover the truth for themselves. The need for female relieving-officers, which we have always seen, is emphasised by that part of the Commissioners’ report which refers to certain charges as “ not proven.” This is never a satisfactory verdict, and to prevent the possibility of any recurrence of it female officers should be appointed. For the rest we shall await with interest the. full test of the Commissioners’ report. It is not Usual, we believe, to publish such documents in full before submitting them to Parliament, but in this case there should be no unnecessary delay in placing the report -in the hands of-the members of the Charitable Aid Board.