IN REPLY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 8965, 1 February 1888, Page 5

IN REPLY.

THE CHARITABLE AID BOARD AND

COLONEL HAULTAIN.

Considerable discussion ensued at the ordinary meeting of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, yesterday, with reference to the assertions made in a letter written to the Herald by Colonel Haultain, and which appeared in our issue of Saturday, under the heading, " The Charitable Aid Board and the Refuge." Mr. Buck land asked the Chairman whether he had read the letter in question, the writer of which accused the Board of wrongfully diverting the Costley bequest trust to an illegal purpose. This was a very serious charge to make against the Board, and he felt that to some extent the Board's honesty had been impugned. He (Mr. Buckland), as one of the new members of the Board, hoped thals the Chairman would make a statement or bring up a report on the matter. Mr. Diiinan did not think it the duty of the Board to take notice of what was said in the newspapers. If a complaint was to be made respecting the administration 'of the Board, that complaint should bo made to the Board themselves. Mr. At kin agreed in the view held by Mr. Dignan. When he first read the letter referred to, he felt inclined to reply, and had he been a ready writer he would probably have done so, but upon thinking the question over calmly, he had decided that it would bo a wise step to allow the assertions to pass unnoticed. Ho had come to the conclusion that the man who would write a letter such as the one in question, was an inherent coward.

Mr. George did not think that a man who wrote a letter to the newspaper, and signed his name to his communication, was a coward. The}' all knew that where there was smoke there was some fire.

Mr. Niccol maintained that at the same time it was hardly the duty of the members of the Board to take notice of what was said in the newspapers about them. Ho thought it would puzzle Colonel Haultain or anybody else to show that there had been any diversion of the trust. The Board thought they wore doing what is proper by investing the money, whilst Colonel Haultain thought they ought to erect an extensive building at Ellerslio, and thus levy additional taxation. If Colonel Haultain thought that any wrong was done in the matter he could easily bring the Board to book.

Mr. Cooper had heard the statements in the letter corroborated by other people, and he considered this sufficient to justify the Board holding an inquiry into tho matter. As for the assertion that people wore committed to the Asylum who ought not to be sent there, the onus of disproving that rested with tho medical men, and not with the Board. (Hear, hear.) Ho thought that Colonel Haultain had done some good in writing to tho newspapers; for such a system as ho instanced was practically reversing to the old system of locking people up in private lunatic asylums ; and if such a method wero pursued an inquiry should be held.

Mr. Atkin pointed out thattho charge of committing people to the Asylum who ought to be sent to the Refuge was not one for the Board to answer. The medical men should tako up tho matter. If it was thought desirable to hold an inquiry into tho matter, ho would suggest that a special meeting of tho Board bo held, when the subject would be considered. The Government had contributed largely to tho crowded condition of tho Asylum by their loose system of immigration, by which persons in shattered health and with their reason weakened had been brought to tho colony. Mr. Crowtjier said the question whether they had tho right to feed the poor with tho interest of the Costley bequest was what tho Board had to answer. Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond had given their opinion that the Board had the right to do this. Tho inmates of the Refugo were bettor housed now than ever beforo ; whilst there were thousands of dwellings in tho city which wero not as clean as were tho premises in question. Tho Board were doing what was bost—they were feeding the poor with tho interest of Costley's money. What would be the consequence if they erected a mansion at Ellerslie for .tho poor, and had no money to purchase food for them when they were taken there It was the bounded duty of every member of the Board to keep down taxation to the lowest limits, and when they remembered that but a few years had passed since tho Refuges were the only hospitals we had, and that tho buildings in question wero now in a better state of repair than when they wore usod as hospitals, they would agree that there was no necessity for the mansion at Ellerslie. With reference to the assertions respecting the people in the Asylum who ought not to bo there, when ho had read Colonel Haultain's letter he thought there was one man out who should be in the Asylum. (Laughter.) Ho (Mr. Crowther) was ono who did his utmost to conserve the funds, and this was the duty of the other members of tho Board, and if they could invest tho money and get G per cent, for it, whilst distributing charitable aid, and conserve the funds, that was the point they ought to work for. Mr. George: And use C'ostley's bequest for the purpose of saving the public from a rate.

Mr. Crowtuer (excitedly): Costley made no provision for a mansion; and when Mr. George has worked upon tho Relief Committee as long us we have, he will find there" is a lot of people relieved who do not deserve it or need it.

I Mr. Dignan thought that Mr. Costley | himself would not, have approved of the erection of extensive buildings such as had been proposed. ' Mr. Atkin coincided in this view. Mr. Gkoroe pointed out that Mr. Costloy left his money to relieve the poor, and not to save the ratepayers' pockets. Tho Chairman (Mr. Mays) remarked that Colonel Haultain had been so long connected with public institutions that ho probably would not write anything which he thought was not correct; and he (Mr. Mays) believed that what he had stated in the letter he conscientiously believed to bo true. Some time ago, Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond wore applied to for information as to whether the accumulated interest on the money left by Mr. Costley could be paid into the ordinary funds of the Board for the relief of the poor, and they replied that not only was it proper that it should be done, but it was the duty of the Board to take this step. The sum of £2800 (in round numbers) was applied to the ordinary revenue of the Board for the maintainancc of the refuges and the relief of tho poor ; and what the Board had dono was according to the advice of the solicitors. The money had not boon applied to pay the debts of the Board, though in making up tho estimate for tho year they had taken into account the £2800 referred to. It had been said that tho public were relieved of taxation to that extent ; but surely they were not to he blamed because of that. It was very difficult to give such a bequest to a public institution without relieving the public. Supposing that an individual gave the Board £1000 as Mr. Costley had done, surely they could apply this £1000 to the relief of tho poor, ana relieve the tax-pay-ing public from the payment of £1000. Mr. Mays wont on to show that the public had benefited by Mr. Costley's bequest to the Freo Public Library, since they had thus been relieved of the payment of a library rate, and referred to the fact that the authorities of the Auckland Institute, Sailors' Home, and Parnell Orphan Home invested the money bequeathed to those institutions by Mr. Costley; and there were no more restrictions placed upon Costley's bequest to the Hospital and Refuges than had been made in the other cases to which he referred. Ho could not conceive how the charge of diverting the trust could be laid at the door of the Board. Another letter had been written to the paper contending that it was a shame that old men and women, and children should be wandering about starving whilst the Board had this magnificent bequest locked up. He (Mr. Mays) had been a member of the Charitable Aid Committee for two years, and he had not known of a person being turned away without assistance, who had made out a deserving case. Every applicant was given the benefit of the doubt, and temporary relief was . always given pending inquiry. Certainly no old man or old woman need wander about the streets if he or she chose to apply to the Board for relief. The Boaid had also taken steps to avoid the crowding of the Refuges, and if any poor old men or women were desirous of remaining at home with their relatives, the Board would much prefer to assist them to remain at home than that they,

should help to overcrowd the j Refuge; and they were now supporting over 100 people in the houses of -their relatives. Reference been made to the Asylum, and it was said that people had been sent there without cause; but that was a matter of opinion. He had with him a return drawn up by I)r. Cremonini, and this return showed that from August, 1887,to January, 1888, 16 persons had been sent to the Asylum who ought to have been committed to the Refuges. Why these people were kept there when they might be well cared for in the Refuge ,he did not know, and somebody must surely have the power to order their removal; but if tha Government could not transact their business properly it was not the fault of the Board. If the Asylum authorities, Dr. Cremonini, or the visiting officers, had applied for accommodation for those people in the Refuges it would have been granted at once. But the blame of this want of authority should not rest with the Board. '

Mr. Uoy also spoke. He thought the local bodies should have control of their own poor. The discussion then dropped.