PHILANTHROPY.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13676, 19 August 1908, Page 7

PHILANTHROPY.

TWO SALVATION ABMY STATEMENTS To the Editor of the "Timaru Herald.' 1 - Sjr,—The recent exposures of the Salvation Army method iif Britain have not mended the manners of that institution in Australasia. This is forcibly bought home to us in .a, publication entitled "£lO for a Soul!" Although purporting to be anonymous it has the General's name on the "title page, as well as the "Blood and Fire" brand, and is published at the Australasian headquarters by • ComrnksiontT McKie. so it is really an official production. The- Army must accept responsibility for it.. N*ow there are in it. two statements that demand examination. The fan* is headed "To you" and runs thus " £2O •will house, clothe, feed and educate one friendless boy, and one friendless girl for one. year,'' followed up by an appeal for cheqiifs to be forwarded to Commissioner Mchie, Melbourne. This certainly means that the Army can maintain the boy and girl for that sum, but. examination will show that this claim is thoroughly dishonest, as the amount from Government grants aOone far exceeds this sum per boy and girl. In the " working account'" of" the Social Branch iif the Army asgiven in the very sume publication, and duly certified as correct by .Messrs Holmes and! McC'rindte, auditors-, we find that the items for the Boys Homes at Bayswater (Victoria), Riverview(N.S.W)., Toowoomba (Queensland}, Mt. Barker <S.A.) and Collie (W.A.) Government grants and capitation fees, etc., total £4014 19s Id and lor the Girls Homes at Riddeil, Murrumbeena and Glenroy (Victoria) ; Yeronga, (Queensland) ; Beaumont, (S.A.); and Collie, iW.A.); the same items total £3,359 9s Wd. From the same book we learn that at the beginning of the year 1907, there -were 261 inmatts in boys" himes and at the end of the- year there were 257, giv ing an avrage of 259, and of the girls 2-30 at first of year, and 504 at the end, giving an average of 267. Lt will thus be seen that tire Government grants alone amount to £2B 4s per boy and girl, or £8 mere than the statement as to the total cost. Were the amounts added that are obtained from private donations we would G".e the full amount" of mis-state-ment by the Army officials, but "this can not be accurately obtained from the

" working account" as published as they slyly -lump thess "with sales and work done- The items read, " Donations, sales, and work done by inmates," which reaches a total of £7,570 Is 3d for the hemes, mentioned. The Army does not wanb the public to know too much. We will now pass on to the second statement which is "To carry on this mighty rescue relief agency, no less a sum than £1,600 per week is required, the bulk of which i> provided by the labour of the inmatevs; the balance—less than £2OO a week—we are compelled to ask the public to provide." This is just as misleading as the other, as will be seen from the same : " working account" where we get the following as income: £ e. d. Headquarters Accounts— Donations 94 17 0 Sort. Grants 1900 0 0 Rescue helpers subscription 4 0- '3 Social, appeal ' ...:.".„....' 1511 18 5 Christmas appeal 484 8 5 S.F. and League donations 276 3 11 P. Court Govt, allowance 75 0 0 Grants from self-denial ... 2500 0 0 Legacy account 310.17 11 >l?n\> homes Govt grants 4315 19 1 Women's homes Govt. grants, 3678 9 10 Total, £15,151 14 8 As in the. other case we have already nsarly "half as much again as the amount named by.the Army aa the public's share of the .'cost, this being nearly £SOO per •week without the items "donations, sales, and work done by inmates" which total £65,090 2s- 9d. It is very evident that the Army officials do not wish us to know the proportion of sales in this, as it is plainly a blind to lump donations to the homes together with sa!es. But we will try to arrive at the facts as nearly as we can. The stock in hand at the eud of the year only totalled £7,828 lis 2d. and the amount, from last year and purchased was £14,993 2s 7d, thus leaving a balance of £7164 Us 5d of stork cost price, sold or consumed. If we allow 100 per cent profit- and double the value of stock tlis-put-cd. of we should be allowing a fair margin for the Army, considering the amount that would f>e consumed! by themselves, and the relative of the total stock. But in order to be sure to give the Army the benefit of the doubt wo will estimate that they get treble the ceist of the stnek which gives an income of £21,435 143 3d on this head. Deduct this sum from the "donations, sales etc.." leaves a sum of £451596 8s 6d to add to the £15,151 14s Bd, giving a total of £58.748 5s 2d. .or no . Icm* ;,& sum than £1129 15s per week found by the public for the social work "f the Army in 1907. In the*'face of thtv what can we think of their statement that less than £2OO per ■week is required from the public'/ are a set -of officials capable of making misleading statements like the- above fit to

b; trusted with public money ? When they pretend that £20.16 the" total tost I for cue year for a. boy and girl while l their own accounts show- that over £2B is received by them on this account from" tha various Governments without including any of the private collect-ions and donations, and whtn over £IIGO per week is extracted from a long suffering public in the name of philanthropy while they pretend that the weekly sum is less than £2OO they con be worthy of no confidence. The only doubtful item is the amount for sales, and it is the fault of the Army for concealing the facts that leaves any doubt, on that head. But I am sure that the margiu allowed in trebling the ctyt price of stock sold is all in favour of the Arniy, and in. any case, aa shown the certified headquarters accounts and the Government grant 6 alone run up to about £IOO per week over their statements. Philanthropy! What deeds 'are done in thy Hfime! And it muc-t never be forgotten that the •social scheme is merely a branch of the Army; that its main butrineis is the support of the local preaching and collecting coqw who are mainly kept by money extracted from the .public. When the branch (scheme costs the public £1129 per week we would certainly lik6 to know the whole* "demined total." In 1907 the grant from the N.Z. Govemme&t • -was £950. There can be no doubt lha't money given to any N. Z. Charitable Aid Board will do nunc to uKeviate human misery than double the amount, banded to im-iv ponsible philanthropy-mongers. And the greatest- evil is that when people drop their shilling in a. professional collector's tambourine, they think that they have done their whole duty to their poor brethren; thus the professional philanthropist is the greatest enemy to the destitute, and the btruggling poor.—l;am etc., ' , M. ALEXANDER.