The Star. SATURDAY, MAY 19, 1928. NOTES OF THE DAY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18467, 19 May 1928, Page 4

The Star. SATURDAY, MAY 19, 1928. NOTES OF THE DAY.

f | "'HE POWERS of the Board of Health in regard to the authorisation of loans without polls are set out simply in the decision not to authorise a loan for Cathedral Square “ improvements.” If for some arbitrary reason the citizens refuse to carry out certain essential sanitary works, then the powers of the board may be invoked to force upon the community the thing which it has refused to do. Under this interpretation of the Act the board would be fully justified in the decision it has come to. As it is, it has half a dozen other and more substantial grounds for turning down the City Council’s proposals. We feel that so far from exceeding its powers in any way, it has taken the most serious view of its responsibilities, and has given a decision that cannot be questioned. It was very grossly deceived (not, we are bound to say, by the present council) when it originally issued a requisition on the representation that the War Memorial Committee was unanimously in favour of the scheme. Perhaps its experience on that occasion made it particularly cautious of subsequent representations from the Christchurch City Council. r T'HE PRINCIPAL POINT that Mr G. A. U. Tapper, honorary treasurer of the M’Lean Institute, made in his letter to the board was that for an expenditure of £15,000 per annum there should -be at least a hundred persons enjoying the great benefits of the Trust, instead of half that number as at present. This point was dismissed very briefly by the Mayor in the long statement he made regarding Mr Tapper’s letter, and Mr Archer’s chief grievance seemed to be that Mr Tapper had given a copy of his letter to the papers before he left for England, and that the board was debarred from following its usual course of discussing such matters in camera. We think that Mr Tapper has done the public a service in handing his letter to the newspapers, because when there is such a very long waiting list of ladies eligible to receive the benefits of the Trust, it is desirable that public opinion should have some influence on a board that admittedly has been guilty, in the past, of piling up a debit balance on its income account of - £15,000. The Institute administers a private bequest, but the board of governors is essentially a public board, and this is the view taken by Mr Tapper. Under the will the balance-sheets and statements have to be made public, but it is a moot point whether the board has done this. Mr Tapper does not seem to think so, at all events. In his letter he says: “ The auditor, in my opinion, when he found-that certain amounts had been paid contrary to the terms of the will, should have made the notification on the balance-sheet and not on a separate memo. The public, in my opinion, should know as much as the board.” The board received this letter in committee, and if the newspapers had not received copies from Mr Tapper the public would have known nothing about it. BRITISH' CONSERVATISM is exemplified in the debate, reported by cablegram yesterday, in which the House of Lords talked out Lord Astor’s motion on the subject of what is known in New Zealand as the Family Protection Act. The principal clause of the New Zealand Act reads:—If any person (hereinafter called the testator) dies leaving a will and without making therein adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the testator’s wife, husband, or children, the Court may at its discretion on application by or on behalf of the said wife, husband or children, order that such provision as the Court thinks fit shall be made out of the estate of the testator for such wife, husband or children. The Court may attach such conditions to the order as it thinks fit or may refuse to make an 1 order in favour of any person whose character or conduct is such as in the opinion of the Court to disentitle him or her to the benefit of an order under this Act. This principle is accepted in the laws of Scotland, Australia and New Zealand, but it has always been resisted very strongly in England, where property is sacrosanct, and the right of a testator to do what he likes with his money has never been challenged, even where the gravest injustice has been done. Lord Astor’s motion was merely for .the appointment of a Select Committee to consider testamentary law with a view to preventing a man from cutting off his wife and family with the proverbial shilling, and yet the motion provoked a discussion that seems to have ignored the real effect of such legislation as less conservative countries enjoy. Lord Haldane doubted whether any judge was capable wisely of varying a will, and Lord Buckm aster challenged the assumption that women were dependent on men. These comments were obviously wide of the mark, because the effect of the New Zealand Act is merely to provide maintenance in necessitous cases, and' by no means generous maintenance at that. Indeed, the Courts have quite falsified Lord Haldane’s opinion that a judge is incapable wisely of varying wills, and it is a rather striking coincidence that in a case at Christchurch yesterday the judge laid it down that he was not empowered to re-make a will even for the purpose of doing what was regarded by the beneficiaries as “ a fair thing.” The administration of the Act in New Zealand could not be strained to do more than provide adequate maintenance for persons needing such assistance, and the law one that no political party would attempt to repeal at this late day.