South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, MAY 11, 1889.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5004, 11 May 1889, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, MAY 11, 1889.

The Charitable Aid Board did a ridiculous thing yesterday, in determining to ask the Government to reduce their charge for the maintenance of children at the Burnham industrial school from 7s 6d to 5s each per week. Ridiculous, because the board cannot keep children themselves for less, nor for so little as 7s 6d per week,at their own unindustrial home. At any rate they are not doing it. They pay 7s 6d each for the keep of the children in their home, and in addition pay the barrack keeper £1 a week and find him fuel. A proportion of these extras must be charged to the account of the adults, but no less must a portion bo charged to the account of the children. If the board wish to impress upon the Burnham authorities the “ absurdity ” of demanding more for the keep of the children at the school than the Government consider necessary for the keep of similar children in a working raaa’s home; they must first

get rid of the absurdity of paying 7s 6d a week in thtiv own institution. A committee of four has been appointed, to “ consider the best and cheapest way of dealing with the destitute children of the district,” to report to next meeting. Evidently the Board does not believe very strongly in the old saying, “in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom.” The question to be considered is one of the gravest that can come before the board, and instead of tackling it in earnest, each member determining to contribute something towards the solution of a difficult problem, they refer it to a committee and expect the committee to bring up a workable improvement on the present system at next meeting. It is simply impossible to cut and dry any scheme at all, that involves the desired reduction of expenditure. The board will just have to feel their way to something better. The boarding-out system is undoubtedly the best for the children, and if properly managed ought to be the cheapest, as the payments should be reducible as the children grow older. But there must be some children whom no respectable family would care to take charge of at any price. What is to be done with these ? A home of some sort will continue to be a necessity. It is a proper question for the Board to consider whether it is not its duty to stand more closely in loco parentis towards its helpless clients than it does at present, and feed and clothe them directly, instead of farming out their maintenance at so much a head,as cattle are put to graze.