RELIEF OF THE POOR IN AUCKLAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8959, 17 August 1892, Page 3

RELIEF OF THE POOR IN AUCKLAND.

TO THE KDITOR. Sir, —I am sorry if ray method of dealing with poor Chatfieid's case hurt the feelings of any members of the Charitable Aid Board, although I fail to see how I could have acted better in his interest or in the interests of the public, for subsequent events have more than justified my action. If I could have pot food and shelter for the destitute man in a maimer more acceptable to the Board I would have done so, but the day was Friday, and the Board was not to meet till the following Monday, and 1 feared he would die in the meanwhile from exposure and want, in the Domain, as the other man did last week. If I had known that Mr. P. Dignan had not officially adjudicated on the case I would have waited 011 him, because he has always been most attentive in such matters; in fact, the whole Board has been so; it has never failed to promptly and properly deal with any case of distress which I have brought under its notice. I think the two gentlemen committed an error of judgment in Ghatfield's case, and I sincerely hope they will give the man another chance when he comes back. He is not such a bad fellow. He is physically and mentally weak, but he is not a drunkard or a criminal. Mr. Strathern swore that Cliatfield was s " bad lot," and that " his wife is well known to the police." I have got reports from Mr. Moss, manager of the Costley Home, and Mr. Coupland, manager of the Auxiliary Home, and although they report that he was " low spirited, hardly able to crawl, broken down, dirty, indolent," and so forth, they did not find him insolent or insubordinate in the true sense of the term. I have had the police records diligently searched, and find that neither Chatiield nor his wife were ever convicted or even brought before the Courts for drunkenness or any offence whatever, and therefore she is only " known to the police " as Mr. Strathern is.

I hope Mr. Mays will not sit upon me again, because " It's dangerous; it runs in the family." , We have been good friends hitherto, and I would like to continue to be friendly. This is no spasmodic effort of mine. For over twenty-five years I have taken special interest in the sick and destitute, and I think it is a good thing for this community that some of us, unfettered by red tape, do interest ourselves in such matters.

But, sir, my object in writing is specially to draw the attention of the public to two important things. First, Mr. Bollard's serious indictment against the Charitable Aid Board; and, secondly, the pernicious principle on which the election of the members of the Board now rests.

First for Mr. Bollard's public accusation. At the meeting last Monday that gentleman said : " There seemed to be no fixed rule or guiding principle regarding those whom they admitted to the Costley Home. It all depended on the humour in which the Board happened to be whether they gave an applicant a few shillings a week, or admitted him to the Home, or kicked him out of the door." No more serious indictment could be brought against the policy or practice of a public Charitable Aid Board. It accounts for the treatment of Chatfield, who wks turned adrift while there were empty beds in the Auxiliary Home ; also the refusal to shelter the ex-patients of the Asylum, and whom the State had to pay. the Salvation Army a large sum to maintain, thereby virtually causing the establishment of another pauper home; and it accounts for Mr. Strathern's official variableness and consequent unpopularity. Mr. Costley's munificent gift to the poor of Auckland, a princely donation of which the Charitable Aid Board are trustees, to say nothing of the public taxes placed at their disposal, ought certainly to be administered

according to fixed nut and guiding principle, and not according to mere' humour. Otherwise the door is opened for likes and dislikes, religious and political bias, and patronage. Secondly, the system is essentially bad in principle. The evil ,of _ the thing is this: The members of the Charitable Aid Board are elected to that office by the Borough and County Councils. The Board is not elected even by the ratepayers. It ought to be elected by the public. The Board now only represents the ratepayers, not the whole benevolent public. The members are sent to the Board nominally to administer relief, but actually to save the rates as much as possible. . Adequate help, which all writers on poverty claim to be an absolute essential of success, is not thought of so much as this : How little can body and soul be kept together on? The principle of election is extremely bad, and I hope the public will insist on a change. Members of borqagh and county councils are elected to look alter roads and other important matters, and they do excellent work, but the very best men in those spheres may be the worst in the altogether different sphere of relieving the poor and needy. I am making no accusations nor insinutions against our Board. I respect their office, and am dealing with a principle of which they and all of us are victims ; and 1 for one - will net rest till the constituency which elects Charitable Aid Boards in the colony is widened from a handful of men to the entire body of ratepayers or householders, Probably the best people to elect them are the householders. The Boards spend over £150,000 a-year. £60,000 comes out of the general revenue, which of oourse the householders pay, and the people ought to have a voice in the election of the Boards —I am, &c., F. G. Ewington.

TO THE EDITOR.