FLOCK HOUSE SCHEME

Taranaki Daily News, 3 December 1930, Page 7

FLOCK HOUSE SCHEME

UTILISATION OF THE FUND. NO IMPROPER DIVERSION. - To remove any doubt about the disbursement of the New Zealand Sheepowners' Acknowledgement of Debt to Britiish Seamen Fund, Mr. E. Newman, chairman of trustees, has written in reply to views recently expressed by Captain B. Burk, secretary of the 'Merchant Service Guild, Auckland, and Captain F. A.- Maeindoe, secretary of the guild, Wellington. Fears that the original purpose of the Flock House scheme contributors might be lost sight of were expressed by. Captain Maeindoe when commenting on a recent statement that a transitional stage was arriving when the number of Flock House trainees, recruited from the children of British seamen who lost their lives in the war, would decrease each year henceforward. It was suggested that an equivalent number of trainees from a different section of the community could be economically received and trained, but it was pointed out that, to comply with the terms of the trust, the entry of such other trainees must impose no burden on the present funds of the society and the cost of training and after-care must be obtained from another source. Captain Maeindoe and Captain Burk then suggested that, as full justice had been done to the claims of the children 'of deceased sailors, the claims for assistance from merchant sailors who endured the trials of the submarine blockade on vessels carrying soldiers and produce from New Zealand should not be overlooked. It was argued that it would be better to spend any,; money remaining in the fund in that direction ■than to allow it to remain unspent, with the possibility of its being diverted eventually into different channels. Replying to these suggestions, Mr. Newman writes: “The trustees are very appreciative of the help and advice received from Captain Maeindoe in the past in. disbursing grants to disabled seamen, but there are some points in the remarks of Captain Maeindoe and Captain Burk which indicate that the position of the trustees and the fund is not clearly understood by them, and, perhaps therefore, by some of the public. The subscribers to the fund laid down the directions in which the money was to be administered, which were, shortly: (a) For the benefit of the dependents of sailors who were killed or injured at sea during thp war; (b) foi the relief and benefit of sailors, whose need of relief was owing to injuiies received or sickness contracted while in service at sea during the war. “The trustees’ duty has been to follow out these directions. The trustees have most o-enerously interpreted the wording of°the latter clause, and no seaman has been refused assistance whose need •could be in any way traced to such injuries or sickness, the amount expended to June 30 last in cash grants to'beneficiaries being £58,557. “Any cases, such as are referred to by Captain Burk, would be sympathetically inquired into by the Auckland War Relief Association, which kindly investigates all Auckland applications on behalf of the trustees. It is quite incorrect that there will be any sum left from the fund, large or small, which - 'll eventually pass into a’channel unauthorised by the original subset ibers. The investments in land and stock, etc., and the moneys now left in the hands of the trustees will all be required for the purpose for which it was subscribed, and much more could be utilised in the same direction. Both these gentlemen are plainly confused between the organisation developed at Flock House foi trainilia- young people for a life on the land, and the financial resources of the fund. “The trustees’ official statement made it quite .clear that any development which resulted in the Flock House or-o-anisatiou being utilised for the youth of a different section of the community must lie financed from a different source,” concludes Mr. Newman.