BENEVOLENT ASYLUM MANAGEMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10267, 26 January 1895, Page 6

BENEVOLENT ASYLUM MANAGEMENT.

TO TUB EDITOB. Sir, —I htv« carefully perused Mr A. Solomon's letter which appeared in your issue of the 22nd, and for the lite of me I cannot, from all he says, understand the necessity for him occupyiug uo much of your valuable space. Mr Solomon seems t.) have forgotten the old French proverb that "Those who excuse themselves accuse themselves." His whole letter seems to be a laboured attempt to clear himself of some unjust accusation, and to prove by the testimony of another that be speaks the truth. There surely could have been no necessity for the latter, for I did not accuse him of nntruthfulness or anything else in particular, and besides, any person who has enjoyed the acquaintI ance of Mr Solomon!or any leugth of time knows I that he is the very embodiment of truth and I honour. He quotes a statement which I made in my letter, and thea proceeds to say " there is no truth whatever in Mr Fish's statement." At the meeting of subscribers he said I did not know what I was talking about. But these remarks are nothing—they only indicate Mr Solomon's playfully polite way of putting things. We all knew his unfortunate predilection for this styla of argument, and being used to it we take no notice of it. Bat where does the untruthfulness of my statement corns in ? Let me briefly recapitulate what I said. I stated that a chairman who had held office for a long time had been in the habit of issuing orders for goods at his own sweet will. Is this true er not ? Mr Solomon himself [ admits its truth. I farther said that there was no check, examination, or supervision of this expenditure, and I maintain that is strictly true. Mr Solomon tries to meet this by getting the secretary's certificate that upon certain dates, at meetings of the trustees, the books were laid upon tbe table and approved. What bunkum! Does Mr Solomon call this a check or proper supervision ? Those who have been on public bodies of a kindred character know full well the value of that kind of supervision. And after all, how oftea were the books laid on tlie table even ? Why, according to Mr Clulee, nine times only in the couroe of four years. Supervision, indeed ! The only supervision that could have been effective would have been a monthly reference to the Finance Committee, and that was never done, and, if I am correctly informed, when suggested, was objected to by Mr Solomon as I unnecessary.

But I have no quarrel over this matter with Mr Solomon or anyone else. I have raised a question of broad public policy in connection with the management of the institution which I think defective. Surely that can be discussed without the personal element being dragged in. And in reference to the management of the institution, if I mistake not, Mr Solomon has himself admitted to sue more than once in conversation that such could be amended. Indeed, my friend will doubtless remember that upon one occasion at least he publicly made a complaint that men who were receiving relief were often seen going into a hotel kept by a brother trustee and spending money on beer. My friend will surely remember this, as also the reprisal that waa made by the trustee affected and its results.

It is also said by him that my statement is incorrect when I said the recipient of relief was allowed to get whatever he or she had a mind i to. In what respect is that statement incorrect ? Mr Solomon also practically admits its truth, but seeks to prove it the contrary by parading a list of articles within which the I relief must be kept. I knew this quite well, and needed not to be reminded of it. But it is quite true that within those limits the recipients of relief could order exactly what they chose, and that is all that can be inferred from my statement. To seek to put any other construction upon it is only shuffling. Now, with regard to the hupply of tobacco : Mr Solomon says it is a necessity. I say it in a luxury, and not a necessity. But about this tobacco business, let me tell you what I was told by a trustee who .was at the time acting as one of the Visiting Committee. The committee went out to the institution; the question of the cost of tobacco to the asylum came up, and he said to Mr Mcc (the manager), " What about this tobacco P It seems to be costing a great deal of money. How do you manage about the diupenoing of it?" "Ob," he replied, "they all come up, and they get their allowance." " But," says the trustee, " they surely do not all i<moke?" "Well, I don't know," was the reply ; "all but about four come up, and they get it." " But," again said the visiting trus- | tee, " surely that is likely to lead to abuse and waste ? " " Oh, yes," was the reply, "that is quite true, for it was only a few days ago that 1 found 13 (I think that was the number) stiuks nnder or between the mattress of one man's bed." So that it appears the custom then was, and for all I know still is, to give every man (and I am told some women) who conies up for it his allowance of tobacco, whether he is a smoker or not. Well, the result of the conversation was that the committee reduced the allowance by so much per week. The next week another committee visited. Complaint was made to them by some of the inmates about the curtailment of tobacco, and the committee agreed that the former allowance should be resumed, and upon a reference to the board of trustees, the so-called philanthropists bting in a majority, the committee's action was endorsed, and so fizzled out this small attempt at economy. Time after time, I am informed, have attempts been made by Mr Chisholm and others to economise in the expenditure, but unfortunately they have been iv the minority. Now there are a majority of economists, I lam informed, upon the board. I trust this is so, and if it ib I sincerely hope they will stick together and back up the chairman in his desire for economy. I venture to say that if they do they will save during the year a considerable sum of money and at the same time do no violence to those humanitarian sentiments which are an honour to our nationality.—l am, &c, Duaedin, January 24. H. S. Fish. [ P.S. — I would just like to say that t "X. Y. Z.s" letter, which appeared on the 22ud also, has every appearance of being inspired, if not actually written, by your correspondent whose letter I am replying to; but as I have before said, whether this be so or not, I will not reply to anonymous letters upon I this subject.—H. S. I?.