CHURCH IN N.S.W. AVOIDS LOTTERY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19268, 3 January 1931, Page 5

CHURCH IN N.S.W. AVOIDS LOTTERY.

DECIDES ON DIRECT APPEAL campaign. (Special to the “Star.**) SYDNEY. December 24. The Church in New South Wales ha* decided to make a State-wide appeal for direct giving to hospitals that ara in need, as an alternative to a lottery. The churches were concerned at the Premier’s (Mr Lang’s) decision to inaugurate a lottery, and as they wera informed that the Government must have the money from the lottery they decided on a direct appeal campaign. Mr Lang met the churches fairly by agreeing to postpone the lottery until the result of the plan was known. As at least £500,000 is needed this year in order to keep all the hospital* open, the magnitude of the task which the Church has imposed upon itself will be well understood. In these hard times it is not easy to raise money, but such is faith that the council is confident that it will reach its objective. It is not going about the thing haphazardly. It is laying its plans with the utmost care, and in some quarter* it is reported that the appeal will involve an outlay of £50,000 for advertising and other organising expense*. An influential committee has been formed to assist the churches, and thi* includes many laymen and the head* of several Government Departments, whose services have been made avaik able by the Premier. A Super-Optimist. At the head of the new move is the Rev A. E. West, who believes that the result of the direct giving campaign will be greater than the result of a lottery. Perhaps he wants to be regarded as a super-optimist—and all good Christians should be super-opti-mists. Mr West says that the expenses of the appeal would be small compared with the result. A man would willingly give £5 to such an appeal if he knew that at least £4 18* would reach the hospitals. With a lottery he might invest £5, but not more than £1 would go to the institutions he desired to benefit. “ Never, perhaps, in the history of our charities and hospitals,” said Mr West, “ has the need for financial help been 'so clamant and deserving. We are indeed beset by general financial difficulties, but the crisis that faces many hospitals is a great humanitarian call to help the needy and the suffering. It is a call to all right-thinking people to give to the limit _of their power to maintain a lofty ethical ideal as against the subtle and harmful associations inseparable from a lottery. I have faith in the people of New South Wales, and I feel that they will respond nobly and promptly to such an appeal.” Entered a Trap. It should not be imagined that tha Church is unanimous in endorsing the direct-giving appeal. Far from it. The Rev R. B. S. Hammond, for instance, says that the Council of Churches has entered a trap. If it is unsuccessful in raising the £500,000 required by the Government it will not be able to protest against the establishment of the lottery. Other clergymen contend that it is not the duty of the Church to raise money for hospitals, but the duty of the State, and the State should face it without resorting to a gambling scheme. A representative of the Church of England said that the people should be taxed to provide for the upkeep of hospitals. Perhaps he had in mind the New Zealand system, but he did not take into account the heavy taxes which Australians already have to bear. The Rev D. P. MacDonald said that the financing of the hospitals should be a matter for the Government and nobody else. Why; should the Church assume the responsibility? he asked. The Roman Catholic attitude, though not officially stated, appears to b© this: People waste their money on amusements. Why not invest the amount in a lottery with the chance of winning a prize and at the same time give substantial help to the hospitals? A divided Church may mean failure to raise £500,000. The Government

then will not hesitate to organise a lottery. In order that there shall be no delay, the legislation will be passed almost immediately. The Church has been given until June.