THE BLIND INSTITUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19417, 27 August 1926, Page 10

THE BLIND INSTITUTE.

Subsidies upon contributions to the funds of the Jubilee Institute for the Blind, whether for capital purposes or ordinary maintenance of its activities, are payable, without reference to Parliament, under the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act. But beyond fixing a maximum rate of subsidy, £l for £l, the Act expressly permits the Minister of Finance to decide the extent of the State's assistance. Under these wide powers, the Government has cancelled an arrangement sanctioned by thirty years' observance, and, without warning, reduced the institute's income by over £3OOO a year. The "trustees have not acted precipitately in appealing for public support of their representations against this decision. The subsidy for the first quarter of 192425 was paid; when the next instalment was due, it was bluntly refused, and that attitude having been maintained, the institute' has been deprived of some £II,OOO that would otherwise have accrued to its funds by the former supplementing of pri : vate contributions. There may be some force in the official argument that the trustees did not require the full subsidy, since there has been an annual surplus for accumulation as

an endowment, but disagreement with the trustees' policy of establishing financial independence surely should not have been expressed in action that was unwarrantably drastic in itself and economically unsound in principle. Instead of subsidising contributions, the Government proposes to cover any deficiency in each year's accounts. The trustees are not exaggerating the effect of this proposal when they predict that financial support for the institute will decline. Hitherto, contributions have been solicited on the ground that only half the budget would be provided by the State's grant; now the subsidy is to cover the whole deficiency, so that the anxiety of the public for the institute's financial welfare may presently be replaced by assurance that its needs will be supplied by the Treasury. It is, indeed, not at all unreasonable to presume that the cost of supplementing the institute's income will presently be much greater than in the past, a prospect that could hardly have arisen hadthe matter received adequate consideration by the responsible Ministers, especially if they had first given the trustees opportunity to present their views. What has been done in this case, moreover, will excite alarm regarding the Government's attitude toward subsidies on private contributions generally. If such drastic modifications are sanctioned in particular cases, the general policy of national grants in proportion to private gifts for public purposes will be gravely imperilled.