A REPLY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 6542, 5 April 1882, Page 3

A REPLY.

TO THE EDITOH OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. ~ Sib,—ln your paper of this morning there • appears a letter signed “ G.M.A,” and as the : remarks contained in it are calculated to mislead, permit me to say a few words in explanation. I would premise that the Public Works Committee consists of the Mayor and the whole of the City Council The subject of the Corporation workman having broken his leg was brought before the Public Works Committee, and fully discussed ; and, after mature deliberation, it was unanimously agreed that the man should be allowed his pay'untU;he recovered;,from his accident. The question was asked, if the man belonged to any of the benefit societies of the place, and it was understood that he did not. A general expression of regret was made that the unfortunate man did not belong to one or other of the Societies, as, in that case, ho would have had something to fall back upon. Under these circumstances, what was to be done ? Was the man to be left alone to die, and bis wife and family to starve ? He bad been a good servant to the Corporation ; was a steady, sober, and industrious workman, and was employed at his duty as a lead caulker and ganger on McKirdy’a contract on the Wai- : nuiomata Waterworks when he met with the accident. The Councillors did for the Corporation what they would have done for them- - elves—they made provision for the unfortunate mau until he was able to earn bread for nimself, his wife and family—one of the Councillors remarking that be had done the same thing numbers of times on his own account, and would do the same again if the circumstances arose. I can assure “G.M.A.” that the importance of the Corporation employees belonging to sick and accident Societies was fully discussed, and the Engineer instructed to impress the matter upon the workmen. And it may be some relief to “ G.M. A.’s” mind to know that the employees of the City Council have already formed a sick and accident fund, and that the present case will probably be the last that will occur, as the self-reliant policy has been introduced amongst them. There is an old saying, that “it is an i 1 bird that fouls its own nest." The application from the Benevolent; Institution contains no such statement as “ That the next day being the last day of the Government financial year, if they did not get it then, they would lose the Government subsidy.” The Council has a voice in the expenditure of the money granted to the Benevolent Institution, the Mayor and two Councillors are on theJCommittee, and the Inspector of Nuisances is Secretary. “G.M.A.” seems most solicitous about the interests of the General Government. T need hardly say that the Government is able to look after its own interests without receiving his aid. When did Wellington receive more than its just share of the public revenue ? And, if the money was received, for whose benefit would it be expended ? Why, the necessitous poor of Wellington. “ G.M.A. ” should remember that the Councillors are ratepayers as well as himself, that they devote a large amount of their time to the carrying on of the business of the Corporation, and that they get nothing in return for their loss and trouble. It is a poor recompense to receive abuse, and to have all sorts of unworthy motives attributed. It is this kind of thing that prevents some of the most suitable men in the community coming forward to take a part in conducting the business of the Corporation.—l am, &c,, . PtJBLICOLO.