PROPOSED NEW HOSPITAL

Nelson Evening Mail, 6 July 1916, Page 7

PROPOSED NEW HOSPITAL

MINISTER'S LETTER TO THE { BOARD. The letter from tho Hon. G. W. Russell to the Nelson Hospital Board, in which the Minister stated that lie could not consent to the new hospital being started til! conditions became normal, was discussed by the Board yesterday afternoon. A letter from the Minister to Messrs T. A. 11. Field and R, P. Hudson, M's.P., was couched in terms similar to 'those of the letter to the Board. Mi- Macmahon said notwithstanding what the Chairman of the Board had said two years ago, the Minister himself. after visiting the Hospital, said was absolutely necessary that a new bidding should be erected. The Minister was not correct in saying the Boar.J was not finding am- of the money, as . t was really finding the £15.000. Mr Lock also said the. Minister had expressed the opinion that a new hospital was an urgent necessity. The Board had never asked for the whole of the subsidy being paid in one sum (except at the outset), but for progress paA--ments. The Government had had £30.000 or £40,000 in duty out of the Cawthron. estate. ■ Progress payments had been made on bequests in other parts of th-? Dominion, and during war time. He was satisfied the Board would get the money from the Government, but it was difficult to get progress payments. Mr Hon It said a- minority of the Board (of which he was one) had done all it could to havje the hospital commenced. Owing to the altitude of the Board it looked as though the Government now refused to allow the Board to go on with the building. Let the Board stop i haggling and present a united front and set on with the new hospital, spending its £15.€00. The Chairman said he would maintain the position be had taken up t > the end. . The Board had lost nothing. The Board J could not liave done anything, as it had ; not tho plans. The first he had seen i f ' the plans was that day. He wanted !o j see the hospital started as soon as pos I sible— | Voices : It's too late now. The Chairman claimed that he had j done all he could to get the building started. The Government had now nut •ts i'not- down. and the Board could hot run the risk of losing the subsidy. The plans had been promised 15 months aao ilr Bell contended that the Board was ,ns muc.h to blame for the delay as the "i.rchil cr-t. Mr IToult also bold that the Boai "t was as much to blame as the architect, j The 'test thine to do was for all the t members to r.eshpi. ' Mr Look moved that the Minister lie j : nformed that it is the unanimous I ipinion of the Board that it is most da- j sirable to erect a new hospital, this be- j ing an urgency: that plans having been | prepared, and completed the Board asks j permission of the Government to call j for tenders for the •work. Mr Lock J =aid there was no provision in the plans j for a maternity or a chronic ward, i though at Tuesday's conference of local J bodies it had been stated that there j was. Tlie Board was elected by the i ratepayers and the Board as much represented the ratepayers as did the City or County Councils. Mr'Hoult seconded p>ro forma. and said that if the resolution was carriel it would be ridiculous, as how could the Board say it wrfs united until Mr Macmahon's motion to rescind a- former resolution and to accept the Minister's former proposal was carried? Mr Macmahon would like to see the former resolution rescinded and. the Board present a united front. He, too, thought it unfair to blame the architect for the whole of the delay. He would very much like to see the erection of the building gone on with. The number of J patients was increasing, and further provision would have to be made. He believed if the position was nut plainly before the Minister the latter would consent to the building heing started. The Chairman thought it would be easier for the' Government to make protress payments rather than pay the whole subsidy- in one sum. The Minister having put his foot- down he (the. Chairman) would not care to take t-lie responsibility' of starting the building. Mr Allan said the time was inopportune to spend a large sum of money at such a sacrifice. He endorsed, the attitude of tho Minister. The Board was - not unanimous. Tlie Chairman saw nothing for it but for the Board to swallow its disappointment for a few months. The Alexandra Home had to be rebuilt, and that would absorb the whole of the available labour. Mr Lock said he was prepared- to delete the word "unanimous" from his resolution. j Mr Hoult moved as an amendment * tliat the matter be deferred for a- month md that Mr Macmahon interview the Minister. There was some misapprehension.. and the interview might do good. The Chairman said the amendment

was practically a reflection on himself. Mr Bell said 1 hat if the Chairman did not mind he would, like to see Mr Macmahon go to Wellington. He seconded the motion. Mr Allan and the Chairman could not see that- a. deputation would do any good. It- was suggested that the Chairman should accompany Mi- Macmahon. but Mr Baigent repeated tliat he did not think a deputation could do any good. Mr Lock, in reply, said that the architect- was responsible for the delay up to the lime- the lighting and heating was discussed, and the Board was responsible i for the delav since then. The amendment was lost. Ayrs (3) Messrs Hoult, Bell, and Mrs Watson. Noes (3) The Chairman, Messrs Leer. , and Allan. The Chairman gr.vc lih casting vote against the amendment. I.Mr Lock's motion was put: and declared carried on the voices.