THE MARRYING AGE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1788, 6 November 1919, Page 4

THE MARRYING AGE.

REPATRIATION BOARD DISCUSSION. The question raised at last week's meeting of the Canterbury Kepatriation Board, as to whether it was advisable to make grants, to buy furniture, to young returned soldiers who wished to be married, whilst still learning a trade, was referred to again at the meeting of the board last evening. A letter was read-from the executive of the Christchureh Returned Soldiers' Association, forwarding a resolution, urging that in future the age of an applicant should be no bar to his receiving the furniture grant. This letter was received without discussion. When the Sustenance and Furniture Committee's report was presented, Mr W. E. Leadley pointed out that the application for the furniture loan from one of the young men, whose case was 'discussed at last week's meeting of the board, had still not been granted. He wanted to know whether the applicant had been turned down becauses he was a subsidised worker, or because he was considered too young to marry. Mr Leadley moved, as an amendment to the adoption of the report, that the application be granted. Mr N. B. McCallum seconded the amendment. Mr E. J. Howard said the board should have confidence in the committee to which it had referred the matter. He was sure the man would get a fair deal from the committee. The chairman (Mr A. F. Drayton) urged Mr Leadley to withdraw his amendment. He assured him that the committee would "* deal fairly by the man. Mr Leadley, however, refused to withdraw the amendment. He objected, he said, to the man being blocked because of his age. Mr H. S. J. Goodman said the man had been asked to appear before the committee, but he had not, done so. The 'committee wished to mSke sure that the man was going to make good at his trade. Mr Leadley had had an opportunity of putting the matter before the committee, which had duly considered the application. Mr Leadley: No; it was not duly considered. He added that the committee had merely held the matter over; because the man did not appear before it. Mr Leadley was again urged to withdraw the amendment, but he. refused. On the matter being put to the meeting, the amendment was lost, only Messrs Leadley and McCallum voting for it.