CHARITABLE AID.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15717, 9 September 1911, Page 13

CHARITABLE AID.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —■“ Employer ” admits that it is utterly impossible for a married man with a family of four to live decently on £2 per week. How, then, he pertinently asks, does the casual labourer at 8s per day exist, by charity or by sponging on th© earnings of his wile and children P Charitable aid in Christchurch is not so easy to secure, let alone being generous, to admit of many casual labourers living on doles served out to them from this source. Tnere remains, then, the only other alternative, that ol living on the earnings of his wife or‘children or both. On tho face of it, this does not seem to be a very manly act, but who primarily is to blame for this state of affairs—the man, the wife and family, or the community as a whole? I blame the community. Private charitable institutions in New Zealand aro increasing at an alarming rate. Every religious sect has/ its social charitable institutions. In fact, charitable aid in Christchurch might almost be said to be monopolised by private concerns and kept up almost solely by voluntary subscriptions and voluntary service. While this is commendable, it is very far from satisfactory. Relief should at all times be granted as promptly as possible. In voluntary service it depends upon the whim, humour or amount of leisure the volunteer has. Further, investigations are carried out in an entirely wrong manner, and bias and prejudice too often prevent real deserving cases from securing the assistance they so badly stand in need of. In many cases assistance is denied the suffering wives and children merely because the husband drinks or is too lazy to work. Be the husband what he may, it is a violation of every civil and moral law to penalise the wife and children for . his shortcomings. Gaol him, make him work, hang him high as Hainan if you like, but do not victimise his unfortunate wife and children.

By adopting the methods now employed, wo deliberately manufacture the raw material that in the near future will fill our gaols, our lunatic asylums anti our brothels. From this point alone this method is disastrously expensive. . Let me state a case by way of illustration. Not long ago a woman applied to a local charitable institution for assistance. Her case was investigated. She was separated judicially from her husband, wno may be best d| C ?® rl be r l {>B a beast. She took tho two children with her, the elder a girl under ten years of age, the younger a more child. She received no assistance from her husband, yet her application for assistance was refused because of a suspicion that the woman was of a low moral tone, which suspicion was hardly borne out by facts. Tho charitable institution authorities declared that they c ° u !d not encourage immorality, but what did they do by refusing her assistance? They forced her to accept the only door open to earn a livelihood, by the sale of her body, and the result is bound to bo an immoral woman and quite, possibly two immoral young woman in tho. near future. If the charge of immorality be true, then the woman had no right to have charge of her two children. The State, in its own concern, should stop in and see that its future citizens should have the best environment possible in order that they may become moral and useful momhers of societv. This case is a fair sample of many.. The day has come for tho total abolition of the privato charitable institutions and tho forcing of the whole community to recognise the responsibility it owes to its unfortunate members of socioty, unfortunate in a vast majority of cases through no fault of their own.—l am, eto.,

•L. R. WILSON.