THE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION EXPENSES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10263, 22 January 1895, Page 6

THE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION EXPENSES.

TO THE BniTOR.

Sic,—A geod lot of nonsense, bom ol ignorance and prejudice, has baen written and «*id lately upon this question. Allow me a short space in yonr columns to comment] upon Mr Fish's illogical and really very unwise letter in your issue of the 19th. I do not think Mr Ohisholm is quite frea from blame either, if he said, ao he is reported to have done, that "he thought in a case where 7s 6d was given 6s would be sufficient, if judiciously expended." if this be correct, the question forces itself into prominence: then why has ho week after week for years not only tacitly assented to and voted for, but expressed bis approval scores if not hundreds oE times that applicants should get allowed this 7s 6d a week. Surely his objections should have fouud vent when these allowances were agreed to and passed, and not havo waited till the milk is spilt—till this monay has been irrevocably wasted (p). I venture to think the other trustee* will not be altogether pleased that he should now turn turtle on them—that he should do so upon his own pact actions is, of course?, no concern of theirs. And now as to this " judicious expenditure." Mr Chisholm has, I believe, been the treasurer for two or three years past, and ipso facto chief of the Finance Committee, a position filled by him, I believe, with great credit and a thoughtful care. But is it not a fact (I assert it) that trade accounts come before this committee week by week showing detailed lists of every item of expenditure of chese allowance moneys ? Has the question of any injudicious expenditure ever then been mooted ? Or if it existed at all, why was it allowed to continue ? But if not, his want of loyalty now to his co-com-mibtee men will hardly afford even himeelf unmixed satisfaction.

Now for Mr Fish. Eo does not know bstter, and I think he does not want to. If he wishes to extract kudos out of Mr Chisholm'o thoughtless statement (for I think it is nothing more), and without asking him to account for and grieve over his own share in all this waste, he is welcome to all he can get; but if he elects to rely upon this injudicious expenditure fiction, let me ask his pardon for attempting to deprive him of it. But ere I forget it, let me say that his arithmetic and his logic are equally halting and at fault. Is 6d off 7s 6d, as proposed by Mr Chisholm (happy thought as if by an inspiration, for no reason ia given—inspirations require none), is aot 25 per cent, but 20 percent., and itmeaas, not £2000 off £7000, but £1400. Bat these are mere matters of detail, an<s apparently of small coaoequence where something or somebody hss to bs attacked. Mr Fish is " amazed that (1) the destitute are allowed to order just what they have a mind to, (2) and that no check ia kept upon this." The weak point in these statements lies in the fact that there is not a word of truth in either of them. Tha trustees unanimously approve of and anthorisa a list of certain specified articles to be selectad from, and beyoud and outside thia prescribed list the donees cannot go. Moreover, these items are carefully analysed by the secretary every waek, and without exception each account is initialled by hira, and subsequently initialled by Mr Ohisholm, or by some other member of the Finance Committee—(ls this the "No check" Mr Fish refers to?)—so that itany breach of these stipulations occurred, they could and would be at enca found out and stopped. I would accept your apology at once, Mr Fish, if you did not go on plunging, so I defer that ulfasure.

Now about this 7s 6d versus 6s, let us see what this charg« of extravagance is worth. Allow me to enumerate a few of ths recipients aa a sample of scores of others. (1) An aged couple, past the allotted three score jears and I ten, and past all work, prefer this 7« 6d a week to a home ia the asylum at a cost of Us a week; (2) a widow with from four to eight children all under 12 years ; (3) a grass widow with from four to eight children all under 12 years, whose husband i« on the tramp somewhere, (4-) or has lev&uted with " that other woman," (5) or is in gaol, (6) or in the hospital with some incurable disease, (7) or is a hopelessly confirmed drunkard, (8) or who won't work, (9) or who eaDnot gut it to do, &c, &c. It would b8 easy to fill a column of your paper with such-like cases. Now let 4s 6d or 5s be deducted for the weekly reot most of these poor things have to pay from this extravagant 7s 6d: I ask how is dire starvation and gaunt want to be staved off iE Mr Cfaisholm's Is 6d more be knocked off, unless they or their children beg, borrow, or steal ? Knock off your own beer it you like, Mr Fish—you have, it may be, some compensating quid pro quo in prospect; but hands oil these poor suffering brothers and sisters of humanity, waoae ouly crime is their poverty, and accept the assurance of Mr Robert?, the late chairman of the trustees, to whom all honour is due for so firmly asserting the fact that there is no extravagance—nothing approaching it—in administering the funds of the institution. 1* my memory Berves me, Mr Roberts and Kr Dallas were elected as trustees some two years ago to " put a cbsck, you know, upon the lavish expenditure of those other fellows." Last month they resigned their seats, and, to their credit be it said, leaving the current expenditure goaie £1000 more than they had found it; leaving also in coarse of erection a new wing to the big house at Cavemham, to cost some £2000, to accommodate 40 additional

inmates. Yea, again I say, to their credit ba it recorded.

One word to your ear, Mr Fish. This is private, you know: —"He who giveth to the poor lendath to tho Lord," and, aa Rowland Hill eaid, "If you like the security down with the dust," and don't growl about it.—l am, &c, Duuedin, January 21. X. Y. Z.