The Evening Mail. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1876.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 31, 27 May 1876, Page 2

The Evening Mail. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1876.

We wore glad to see, at the Volunteer Halt last evening so good a gathering of our leading citizens for the purpose of taking steps to organise a relief fund in connection with the Waiareka accident, ft speaks well for the charitable feeling | existing in Paiuaru when we see a number of inttuentbl business men meet together spontaneously, as it were, at such short notice. The opening remarks of the chairman (Mr. 1*imll) to the point, and contained a vast amount of sound common sense. When he stated that the meeting was not one of charity, but of duty, lie expressed, we believe, the feeling of all those present, and his statement that no one deplored the lamentable occurrence more than Mr. CoRJt.uK must have found an echo in the heart of every person present. A fittest ion cropped up in the early part of the evening, which threatened at one time to provoke serious discussion, if not to thwart the objects of the meeting. \Yc confess we were ourselves unprepared to hear the question put by Mr. Clowes, but at the same time it was certainly a very proper one, and which should be definitely answered before any further steps are taken towards initiating the relief fund. Mr. Clowes wished to know, and he thought other persons at the meeting did too, whether the sufferers were to receive aid from the public in addition to what they might recover at law if legal proceedings were taken against the contractors, or whether Mor»titsoN and Co. and the public were to jointly subscribe, it being understood that no action would be taken. We perfectly agree with Mr. Clowes in asking the question, for there can be no doubt that unless the public distinctly understand

that they are subscribing to assist real cases of distress, arid riot providing funds to bring actions at law against the contractors, the result of the canvass -will be most unsatisfactory ; in fact, a mere trifle. People, now-a-days, when they give any money for charitable objects,, like to know in what manner and for what object it is going to be spent. They don't believe in having it thrust down their throats by a Committee that no questions need be asked, but that the money will be properly applied. These days of carte blanche liberality are gone, and the public now look at subscriptions in a matter of fact light, apart from all the delicate mockery wliich usually surrounds them. Mr. Neil Fleming thought that the meeting had nothing to do with law, but should act solely with a benevolent object in view. Of course there is much to be said in favour of Mr. Fleming's suggestion. The chief argument in its favour is this : if these sufferers are deprived from taking action at law, in consideration of any public subscriptions they may receive, then of course their silence is as it were purchased at the expense of public charity. We can easily understand that any person in the unfortunate position of the contractors would only be too glad to subscribe largely to a relief fund to avoid consequences ; but at the same time it docs not follow that because these sufferers do not sue the contractors no oflicial enquiry would take place. It is more than probable that the Government, at the request of Morrison and Co. will take this matter up, and r make a most searching enquiry into the real cause of the accident. It will, therefore, be seen that any funds which may be handed over to the sufferers will not gag a proper investigation as to the culpable parties in the disaster. We perfectly agree with Mr. Fleming when he said that the meeting had nothing to do with the question of law ; but we may be permitted to point out that the Committee will have a great deal to do with this question, for until they can assure the public that no legal action will be taken, the Committee's appeal to those charitably inclined will be j but faintly responded to.