A SAD CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 12008, 10 December 1924, Page 8

A SAD CASE

AND THE PUBLIC APPEAL. . ( The Editor, “New. Zealand Timas.”) Sir, —In your issue of the 9th inat. Colonel G. Mitchell is reported to have written to you stating inter alia, “that through his omission to state; wharb had been done by -the War Relief Association some people naturally would infer that the association had neglected its duty.” Then he goes on to confirm what I stated in my letter of tho Bth inst. viz., that the War Relief Association was and had been for some time, allowing the widow £2 10s per week. It .is true that chore was ample need ] tor Colonel Mitchell to .explain his- un- i accountable omission, but what he has failed to explain. is his affirmative assertion to the Press that “she finds herself in a penniless condition.” It it was purely an omission on his >art to explain what had been done, purely that is an admission that lie trust have known, what was done or hq could' not have been guilty of an omission. Therefore if be was aware of what had been done but omitted to explain it. how does he explain his action in : definitely asserting that the widow was in a penniless condition. ! Further Colonel Mitchell states to the effect that the £2 10s per week was to be paid until the civil widow’s pension was paid. No such condition was attached to the war relief committee’s decision. Colonel Mitchell was present at the meeting on' November 21st when it was brought under the committee’s notice that £2 10a per week, had'been granted by the Pensions Department and was accruing to the! widow’s-credit, and that the two soma ! together viz., £2 10s war relief and £2 10s civil pension,, or £5 per week in all .would hot be a very large sum witH which to support a widow ; with fou| children. And with this knowledge and statement before it. the committee, including Colonel Mitchell, approved en extension of tire allowance until . December 13th when the case was to come up for review to ascertain whether lire widow had succeeded in obtaining employment. Why then, 1 ask, this attempt to explain one seriously misleading statement by making another. ’ -- ■ ■~r It is, noteworthy that since my letter appeared; tts&ing the facts which bad',&therto been, suppressed, that all partpasi have rushed to 'the . Press to gtra detente of the financial assistance renaarewrw°wmy did they not take thS’ public into- their confidence and do it at the beginning instead of misleading them* byXst-ating that the widoSv found horSelf in 4 penniless condition. I emphasise that it is a sorry business, and the most sorrowful part of it is how they are all running away from their cause by implying that the war relief committee cannot be expected to continue the allowance after the civil pension is paid. It would he much more) consistent to advocate its continuance, for after all, as the war relief'committee apparently thought £ 5 per week would not be a very large snih with which to support a widow witjb four children. I agree and urge its continuance, -but should it bo dSeoritinued, let us fall back on the widow’s portion of the £150,000 canteen profits which are accumulating while public oharity is being appealed for for a deceased soldier’s widow. What t the organisers of the appeal term political attacks cannot have re- | feren.ee to me tor I belong to no poli- j tioal party, and am not opposed to , Colonel Mitobefll’s polite*. Wronri again. 0 t. w. McDonald.