THE OPUNAKE TIMES “Speaks for the District” TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1928. THE MENACE OF PAUPERISM.

Opunake Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3164, 24 January 1928, Page 2

THE OPUNAKE TIMES “Speaks for the District” TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1928. THE MENACE OF PAUPERISM.

Since a great many people in New Zealand have the idea that the State should maintain them, the following article, which appeared in the Eltham Argus last week, should be read with interest; —

“The cry of the unemployed is loud and continuous in Christchurch. This, in all probability, is one of the outcomes of the city being blessed, or cursed, with a Labour Mayor and City Council. Wo do not blame either the Mayor or the Council. It is quite dertain that a section of the people having by their votes placed a certain party in power are of opinion that they should receive a quid pro quo in tlie snape of taverns that they would not under ordinary conditions have the same claim for. Of course it must be admitted at once that amongst those who are clamouring for work there are men who are earnest ana honest, willing to work, and worthy of all the assistance that can be given them. On the other hand there are in the ranks of the so-calied unemployed a coterie of sturdy mendicants whose last desire it is to obtain work. The men who are bona fide in search of work will receive practical sympathy from the citizens of Christchurch; the others—well they, no doubt, will got all that they deserve. At one of the meetings of the unemployed in Christchurch one of the speakers blatantly shouted “We want work, not charity." At a subsequent meeting it was announced that they would refuse to accept gifts of second-hand boots and 1 clothing, they wanted gifts of new goods. To our mind a gift of new boots or clothing is just as much cliarity as is a presentation of second-hand goods. But the logic of the Christchurch unemployed differs very much from that of the ordinary individual. The citizens of Christchurch, we have not the slightest doubt, will handle th« unfortunate situation with pru«..u giuc.osity. they have done it before, and will do it again. But the greatest care has to bo taken that their generosity is properly placed. The deserving have to bo carefully sifted from the undeserving. Misplaced sympathy is apt to help in tho direction of rearing a b.ood of loafers who would rather prey upon the State, the local bodies and their fellow men than do hard, honest work.. These are hard facts, no doubt, but the cold truth. As bearing upon what is written above the following is of particular interest. Addressing a meeting in London recently, Sir Kingsley Wood, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, said lie believed the extent of the menace of pauperism, both to the finances and the moral character of the nation, to be one tuthe gravest and most disquieting features of our time. During 1926-27 over €-19,000,900 had I icon spent in the relief of destitution—the pauper army that actually cost more to maintain than the British Army, and while tins was undoubtedly duo largely to the effects of the general strike and the coal strike, the latest returns still revealed a disquieting situation. Outdoor relief had spread like a flood; it was true it was receding, but >t was still at high mark in certain areas. While it was no doubt true that the great population which lived largely upon the rates was in the main composed of the victims of industrial depression and of mad strikes and insane iiiduitml disputes, ifcexe were otUw

factors menacing and threatening honest and careful local administration and public life. There were a number of boards of guardians who had openly defied the principles which had h therto guided the administration <f poor relief. In certain areas there had been a deliberate attempt to break the financial stability of local government, the spirit of independence and tnc incentive to work with the object or forcing the Exchequer to accept responsibility for the relief of unemployed persons generally. Even Mr. Painsay MacDonald was compelled at one time to denounce “Poplarism” and all its works, but the “Poplar” tradition had been carried on in other parts of the country by methods which were now notorious. In certain districts a family on the rates might do as well as, if not better than, a family in work. Throughout the coal dispute, both in Parliament and outside, misrepresentations were -freely mado that women and children were starving, while, in fact, the strike was in no small degree financed, maintained and prolonged through the poor rates ot the'country. In addition to all these matters, many of which were ci nfinea to certain localities, there bad, unfortunately, been a considerable change in the attitude of a number of guardians to poor law relief generally. There were many indications that they regarded it as a means of supplement- * ing wages, based upon the tconomic fallacy that the country could afford and should pay the workless on the same scale as the regularly employed. Such a policy bred pauperism, and misery and suffering were the inevitable results.