The Tumeka Leader TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1888.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1725, 17 April 1888, Page 2

The Tumeka Leader TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1888.

THE HERALD AND MR BARKER. On last Friday morning the Timaru Herald attacked Mr E.. A. Barker for his action at the Charitable Aid Board with unexampled violence. Mr Barker, it appears, at the last meeting of the Board gave notice of the following motions:— j “ (1) That applicants for medical or charitable aid free of cost must sign a declaration stating their inability to pay at present, and willingness to do so. (2) That the monthly published hospital returns include charitable aid cases, showing names, district from which the cases come, and whether paying or not paying. (3) That the monthly returns laid on the table show only those patients admitted to the hospital during the preceding month, and the sums due by them, and that the returns for previous months be also submitted to the meeting ; and that at each meeting the collector be instructed to take proceedings against some of those who are in a position to pay and refuse to do so.’*

.Now, this is all Mr Barker did wrong, and for this he was characterised in the elegant phraseology of the Herald as being“ a shingle short.” How any public writer whose mental condition did not border on that in which Mr Barker is represented could apply such an epithet to certainly one of the most inoffensive men in South Canterbury passes all comprehension. We have known Mr Barker for the last 10 or 12 years, and we have had as good an opportunity of forming an opinion as regards his public actions as anyone has had, and we can say without hesitation that a more honest, a more straightforward, or a more conscientious public man is not in the district. We do not say that he has shown any extraordinary ability, but we will say, without fear of contradiction, that in anything he does in his capacity as a public man he is guided by an honest conviction that he is doing what is right. With regard to the subject at issue, he is represented not only as being “ a shingle short,” but also as callously indifferent to the miseries of the poor. How, to be plain with the Herald, there is no paper in Hew Zealand which has hitherto exhibited less sympathy with the poor than it has. The poor know it, too; they have not forgotten how frequently it has called honest, hard-working men “drunken loafers j” how it represented the action

of the late Ministry for settling them on the land as robbery, and how it has said that no one was to be found amongst the unemployed except those who would not work. They know this, and, though in this matter it professes to represent the cause of charity with an unction that would have done honor to the great Mr Pecksniff, the pour will still think that the article in question was prompted by motives other than those which spring from humanitarian intentions.

To come now to analyse Mr Barker’s motions, we find that he proposes to require applicants for charitable or medical aid to sign a declaration that they are unable to pay, but are willing to pay at any future time they might find themselves in a position to do so. Mow, what is wrong in this F The Herald pictures the miseries of a widow with a large family who has to sign this in the most doleful language, but honest men will at once see that it is not meant for widows. There is no man on the Board, or off it, we trust, who would refuse to succor the poor widow in her distress. If widows were the only class the Board relieved the Herald would have just grounds for animadverting on dealing harshly with them. But let us remember that the hospital is under the control of the Board as well as charitable aid, and that in this hospital able-bodied men and other persons well able to pay are frequently treated. There is no reason in the world why such persons should not pay when they are in a position to do so. They ought to pay for their board and lodgings in the hospital, as well as anywhere else, and it is neither cruel nor harsh to compel them to do bo. We have heard stories of people who have been in that hospital and who though well able to pay neglected to do so, and it is just time some step was taken to compel them. We do not anticipate that the Board would think of going to any extremes in the matter, such as to imprison defaulters. It would never do that, but to make those who can pay for services rendered to them is just, right, and proper. With regard to the proposal to publish the names ot the recipients of charitable aid, we entirely and emphatically disagree with it, and if in condemning it the Herald had used the language of civilisation, instead of descending to guttersnipe phraseology, we should have found no fault with it. To publish the names is most improper, but that necessity requires steps to be taken to prevent fraud is quite plain, and doubtless it is this which has driven Mr Barker to introduce the subject. It would be impossible for the officers of the Board to inquire into every individual ease; to do so would require a staff of relieving officers, which would entail heavy expense. But it is necessary that some supervision should be exercised, and doubtless Mr Barker thought that publication would serve the purpose. It would probably have the effect of causing deaths from starvation amongst those who would shrink from such publicity, while the less sensitive—the very people on whom a watch should be kept—would not be deterred in the least by it. But while condemning the proposal we shall do what the Herald ought to have done: we shall suggest an alternative scheme which will answer the purpose more effectively. Every local body in South Canterbury contributes to charitable aid, and all of them have an interest in seeing that their money is properly spent. Let the Charitable Aid Board take the other local bodies into their confidence, and invite them to act as Local Boards of Advice to them. Eor instance, let us suppose that there are a few in Temuka receiving charitable aid, and that the Charitable Aid Board wish to know exactly whether they are deserving objects of charity or not, they could in that case ask the opinion of the Temuka Town Board on the subject, and it would, we think, be readily given. The same rule would apply to Arowhenua, and to the Temuka Eoad Board and to the Geraldine Eoad and Town Boards, and the Timaru Borough Council, and so on; and as the members of these bodies all live in their own localities they could, with the assistance of the police, give all the information which would be necessary to guide the Charitable Aid Board in its deliberations, In Temuka there are fifteen members of local bodies, with three officers and two policemen; in Geraldine and Mount Peel there are as many more, and if these could not supply all the information the Board would require they ought to go very near it. Mow, this system would do much better than to publish the names, and the feelings of no one would be hurt by it—and we would suggest to the Board the desirability of adopting it in preference to harrowing the feelings of poor, unfortunate people already rendered miserable by their poverty.