SALVATION ARMY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 16 June 1936, Page 9

SALVATION ARMY

A CRITICISM (To The Editor) Sir, —Mr William Lock is to bo commended lor his two recent contributions to your columns, under the heading of ’"The Salvation Army and Relief.” These combined with the definitely unsatisfactory reply from the local Salvation Army Officer, open up a wide field for thought and suggest a number of very interesting points, which undoubtedly deserve careful consideration by the public. Mr Lock’s letters appear to have been prompted by what threatened to be a continuance of the appalling overlapping in the distribution of charity that has existed during the past few years—a state of affairs that no effort should be spared to eradicate. But, in the present instance. a much greater principle is involved. Let us. therefore, face the true facts, with a fair mind and eyes wide open. At the outset, it should be understood that nothing that is said in this letter is intended to cast any reflection upon any particular officer of the Salvation Army, either here or elsewhere. No one more than the writer realises and appreciates the spirit in which many of these officers carry out their work. Certain of them, in fact, rank very high among the finest characters the world has known. But the merits of individual officers have little bearing upon the principles behind the organisation that employs them. The Salvation Army has the reputation of being in the forefront in the matter of the distribution of charity. But it is, to say the least, a debatable question whether there is any real necessity for such a body as the Army to distribute charity, in its usual sense of relief, at all. In this country, generous provision for those in real need is already made by the State. We have hospitals for the sick, palatial institutions for the mentally afflicted, pensions for the aged, the widows and the orphans and Charitable Aid Boards in every districts, With a Labour Government in power, we have been assured of housing, food and clothing for the poor and a minimum wage of sixteen shillings a day for unskilled labour. Where, then, is the great need for the charitable work attributed to the Army? But, if for the sake of argument, we assume that the necessity does exist, what, then, is the true position? The Salvation Army, setting itself up as a religious organisation, claims the right to collect _ large sums of money from all sections of the. community, no matter what their religious views. In the streets of every city, one is waylaid by the Army worker, armed with a collecting box; many times each year, the collector calls at one’s home; while, in the drawing rooms of the chief hotels in all our principal cities, one is faced with the same collecting box, after dinner almost every night of, the week. For so many years has this endless moneygathering gone on, that the right of the Army to collect goes entirely unquestioned, while the perpetual obligation of the public to give is equally taken for granted. And of the public response there is no doubt. Great sums of money are subscribed to the Army the world over, while, even in Nelson, we are told of a single legacy amounting to £21,000. To what purpose are these vast sums of money collected? We are told of the Army’s “good work,” of the help given to the poor and needy and of the general relief of distress. Worthy objects, to be sure, to which, by natural sympathy, the average citizen is inevitably prompted to subscribe. And, with a background of years of organisation and experience, what may we expect to find? Numerous institutions throughout the country for the care of the aged poor; well equipped hospitals for the care of the sick poor—at least for those who are adherents of the Army; homes for indigent children, in beautiful surroundings, splendidly appointed and thoroughly up-to-date; in fact, social work of all kinds, well planned and carried out with unusual thoroughness and efficiency, made possible by the vast sums of money at the Army’s disposal—all functioning with the object of easing the great burden of social services that is cast upon the State. But what do we find in actual fact? A very different state of affairs to be sure. Certainly an orphanage here and there, in some cases completely out of date; a maternity home in certain cities where a substantial charge is made before admission: an occasional home for the aged, which is at least partly self-supporting; an inebriates’ home subsidised by the Government. And, in addition, we find tailoring establishments, laundries, coal depots, shops of various kinds, flourishing private hotels in every large city and substantial Army interests in insurance and shipping concerns. In short, millions of money invested throughout the world in business ventures yielding handsome profits;, some, at least, of which are made possible by the employment of cheap labour and the consequent unfair competition with legitimate business men—the very men, in fact, who are generous subscribers to the Army’s funds! The suggestion that the Army never refuses to assist is not supported by fact. Without any reference to the present officers, more than one instance could be given here in Nelson, of the Army’s refusal to help even its own people. That individual officers are doing good work is not questioned, and I do not suggest that any individual member is profiting by the money subscribed. But the plain fact is that the Salvation Army, as a whole, is not all it claims to be. Huge amounts az-e collected annually and the people who subscribe are certainly entitled to know what becomes of their money. But no adequate balance sheet has ever been presented to the public. This, in itself. is certainly something of an indictment. The proportion of charity administered by the Army is negligible compared with the amount of its re ceipts. An indication of what happens to the money subscribed by a generous public Is given above, and the facts cannot be denied. That 'such a condition of things has been tolerated for so long can be regarded J only as an indication of the credulity . of the people. In half a century, from the genius 1 of one man, who may have been ac- 1 tuated by the highest ideals, has evolved an organisation which, in spite of its claims, is nevertheless a powerful financial institution, with endless and obscure ramifications, that have been recognised by vcz-y : few. It znust be difficult indeed to ■ reconcile such a state of affairs with ' the words of a certain Great Teacher: ■ “No man can servo two znasters; for j either he will hate the ozze, and love j the other; or else he will hold to the »j one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and znaznmon.” —I am, 1 etc., 1 ICONOCLAST. i Nelson, 12th June. 1