COUNTY’S SHARE

Waikato Times, Volume 129, Issue 21599, 9 December 1941, Page 6

COUNTY’S SHARE

HOME GUARD EXPENSES CHEQUE FOR £2 RETURNED COUNCIL ISSUES STATEMENT “We should be ashamed of ourselves!” asserted Mr G. M. Watt at today’s meeting of the Waikato County Council when referring to the previous decision of the council not to increase its contribution of £2 towards the expenses incurred by the Cambridge Home Guard Committee. The remark was prompted by the reading of a letter from the secretary of the committee returning the cheque for £2, and asserting that the council should, like other local bodies affected, meet its share of the liability. Mr R. G. Young moved receipt of the letter, and Mr G. H. Walters seconded this motion.

Mr Watt contended that the Waikato County Council, if it persisted in its attitude, was “letting down” other local bodies, including the Matamata and Waipa County Councils, the Cambridge Borough Council and the Leamington Town Board. “If the council will not pay,” said Mr Watt, “the Cambridge Home Guard members, of which I am one, will wipe off the liability by each paying 2s 4d. You had better frame that cheque, and show always that the council is patriotic—sometimes!” When it was remarked that in other portions of the county the Home Guard sections met their own expenses, Mr Watt said the expenses at Cambridge had been incurred in good faith, and should be borne by the local bodies proportionately. The previous decision was foolish, he declared.

The motion was carried, Mr Watt dissenting. Council’s Attitude

The clerk, Mr C. F. E. Barton, then read a prepared statement correcting some alleged erroneous statements on the subject, and the council approved release of the statement for publication.

The statement set out that without any previous consultation or arrange-

merit, the Cambridge Battalion presented a demand for payment of a levy of £33 6s 6d for proposed expenditure for the year 1941. The clerk had requested details and authority for making the levy, and the Cambridge secretary quoted section 5 of the Emergency Precautions Regulations. This contained no reference whatever to a levy. However, continued the statement, regulation 3 (5) of the Emergency Reserve Corps Regulations, 1940, authorised any local authority to contribute to the funds for the purposes of the corps or for any branch thereof. But this could not be construed as authorising the Home Guard to make a levy on the local authority for past or anticipated expenses. Capitation Estimates

Continuing, the statement referred Ito the claim that there were 118 members of the Cambridge Battalion resident in the Waikato County, and |said it should be borne in mind that enrolments in the battalion in the northern part of the Waikato County | numbered 613. There the members ! had evidently been content to meet ! most of their own expenses, and their I applications for assistance had al- ! ways been moderate. The county council had never objected to contributing to Home Guard expenses where these were shown to be necessary, but it could not agree to the proposition that it should, in effect, | hand the Cambridge committee a i blank cheque, or that either battalion j should be accorded preferential treat- ! ment. The estimate submitted, on | which the levy was based, was incor- ! rect. The capitation grant was given as £45, but in fact up to March 31 !it was £94, and for the remaining three quarters, up to December 31, 1941, it might properly have been estimated at a further £l2O. The statement claimed that the Cambridge Home Guard Committee was a seif-constituted body, and was not entitled to sit in judgment on the council concerning the latter’s responsibilities. The control of the funds was vested in the battalion commander, not in the Home Guard Committee, as was properly pointed out by the Cambridge battalion commander when the committee endeavoured some time ago to gain control of these funds.