BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7568, 20 May 1886, Page 3

BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION.

The weekly meeting of the Benevolent Institution Trustees, held yesterday, was attended by Messrs A. Kennie (chairman), Carroll, Gourley, Hart, Hutchison, Scoullar, Solomon, Green.

Accounts to the sum of £99 13s 2d were passed for payment. The Secretary stated that the bank account was £40 overdrawn.

Among the applications for relief was that of a woman, who earns 17s or 18s a week, out of which she has to support five children. Though her husband earns money on the "unemployed" works, it was stated he spent most of it on drink, and during the past two months he had only contributed 10s towards the support of the family. It was agreed to grant the woman 15s during the next fortnight, and to assist her in taking steps against her husband under the Destitute Persons Act.—ln one. or two cases it

was agreed to assist women by bearing part cost of their passages to Melbourne and Sydney to join their relatives. .

THE SUBSIDY QUESTION. The following telegram was read: —

" The Premier directs me to say in reply to yesterday's telegram, that the Government do not feel justified in paying subsidy on money on which the United Board have already received subsidy. As,ho wever, the Board has only received £793 from the Government, and has paid the institution £1000 a balance of £207 is due, and will be remitted as early as possible."

Mr' Gourley said that every one of the local bodies had made money out of the charitable aid. For instance, Dunedin had made £400, and the five boroughs surrounding Dunedin had received £7000; while for charitable aid it had cost them about as many hundreds. Bach of those boroughs had profited out of it; yet the Trustees wanted the Government to give double or treble subsidies.

Mr Green conld not coincide with, the remark of the previous speaker that every one of the local bodies had made money out of the new system in connection with charitable aid. If he did not agree with an Act it always was his practice, since he had been in this country, to advocate the carrying out of the provisions of that Act while it remained in force. If the Government did not know that the Act contained the provision iv question—and that would be a very curious attitude for the Government to take up—he would say that it was their business to have known of it. He had no doubt that the auditor-general knew of the purport of the third.sub-section of clause 58 of the Act. The communications which had taken place between the Government and the local bodies led him to the conclusion that the Government, at the very outset, referred the matter to the auditor-general instead of to the law-officers of the Crown. Though the auditorgeneral was possessed probably of as great ability as anyone in the colony, he (the speaker) did not say that he would break the law, but he did not know any man who could so readily "get round" an Act of Parliament," and the Government knew him sufficiently well to refer the matter to him. Mr Green drew attention to what he termed the peculiar wording of the telegram— '■ the Government do not feel justified " &c. He entirely objected to the statement that the local bodies had gained money by the

legislation of last session of Parliament. It was possible that towns had gained by the subsidies granted to towns for their members' support to certain measures ; but he asserted that in regard

to the country districts, there wus now nothing like the amount contributed to local bodies compared with the sum granted before the legislation in question. He did not think that the proper time or place to go at any length into the matter; but, as one whs had had some experience of local government administration for years, and who knew how these Acts operated, he wished to say that local bodies were not receiving assistance equal to what they formerly obtained. If Parliament had made a mistake they would be able to rectify it. But the institution had got into debt simply owing to the fact that the Government would not give them a subsidy to which they were led to believe they were entitled to under the Act.

Mr Solomon thought that in this matter the Government seemed to be repudiating a just and a proper liability. The Act said distinctly that £ for £ would be paid them on all money received from the Charitable Aid Board. With reference to what Mr Gonrley said about the profit to local bodies, the City of Dunedin received, under the Local Bodies Finance and Powers Act, 1885, the sum of £1800 for the year, and he believed its contribution towards the Charitable Aid Board was £l'loo, so that it had a clear profit of £400 on the transaction. Mr Hutchison: Supposing they, (the Benevolent Institution Trustees) had come to an erroneous conclusion on the subjoct, what was to be done ? Mr Carroll : Place the matter in the hands of our solicitors to take what steps they can. Mr Hutchison spoke against the creating o

a large overdraft, on the ground that the Go^ vernment had withheld the subsidy.

It was agreed, on the motion of Mr Solomon, "That the president and treasurer be empowered to confer with the Hospital Trustees as to the most advisable steps to take towards obtaining the subsidy clue by the Government under the third subjection of clause 58 of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act."