THE COLONIST. TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1917. THE HOSPITAL SUBSIDY.

Colonist, Volume LVIII, Issue 14395, 24 April 1917, Page 4

THE COLONIST. TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1917. THE HOSPITAL SUBSIDY.

Little if any"fresh ground has been broken by the-.chairman, of the Hospital Board in his reply to the criticism of the Board's handling of the question of the subsidy on Mr Cawthron's gift of £15,000. Mr Baigent still refuses to view the subject in. the light of the more recent correspondence between the Board and ihe Minister, and endeavours to base the Board's case on the alleged .promise of. the-,Hon. Mr Rhodes in 1914 that the subsidy would bejpald in a lump sum. It is surely ;clear that'even if such an undertaking were: ever given by the Minister it is simply wasting time to argue over it now, and that the only standpoint from which the matter may bo profitably discussed is the Hon. Mr Russell's1 letter of. February 28th,, 1916, containing his final word to the Board, the essential portions of which were quoted in our article on Saturday., The whole of Mr Baigent's argument is beside the point, but as there is a danger of the reai point at issue becoming obscured in amass of irrelevancies it will be as

well to hark back to the earlier, proceedings and.show what the Government's proposal for the payment of the subsidy actually was. A perusal ,of the correspondence fails to disclose any promise by the Minister ut any time,' either to Mr Cawthron or the Board, that the subsidy would be paid in a lump sum. What the Hon. Mr Rhodes told Mr Cawthron before the I latter handed his cheque to the Board, I was that the gift would be entitled to a [ subsidy of 24s in the pound. Later the Minister conveyed an intimation to the Board that the subsidy would be available. In neither letter did ho state that the subsidy would bo available in one payment, nor was the manner of ' payment indicated. Both Mr Cawthron ! and the Board, however, seem to have I assumed that a lump sum payment was contemplated, and in February,. 191-1, the Board applied for payment, repeating; the request in the following month. The Minister then wrote stating that ■• though he. had" informed Mr, Cawthron that the subsidy would .be forthcoming," he did not contemplate that the Board would require the whole sum in one payment, and assuring the Board that the subsidy would be paid in progress payments as required. The Board, however, urged the Government to adhere to'its ' 'promise," and the long argument commenced which continued until 'Sir Rhodes gave place to Mr Russell, and has yet.failed to reach finality. This "promise" of a lump sum payment of which we have heard ■so much is a pure assumption which is totally unsupported by the correspondence, and it is really pathetic that some members of the Board should still, be obsessed by the idea .that the Government has endeavoured to evade the performance of its obligations. The offer of progress payments was available to the Board in March, 191&, and remained open but 'spurned by the 'Board until January, 1916, when Mr -Russell, who in the meantime had become Minister of "Internal Affairs, made the suggestion, which we characterised at the time as unreasonable, that the qivsstion of the subsidy should j be left in abeyance until after the war, the Board in the meantime expending the gift. Then Mr Russell issued his fiat that the Board should proceed with the building,, expending the gift, whereupon the Government would make payment to the extent of £18,000." To this proposal the^:'..Board "respectfully declined to agree." That is where the matter stands after the lapse of three years. Could there be more convincing evidence of the advisableness of a change in 'the' composition of the Board?