The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3044, 29 March 1881, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1881.

We have been take.-i to task by one or two town Councillors for declining to credit the governing body of tbe borough with having done a good deed in the matter of refusing a grant of money to the Charitable Aid Committee. Now that the General Government have come to the rescue of tbe poor and indigent, the Municipal Couuoil—or rather some of its members—would have it appear that their action was due to a welldevised scheme to shuffle off responsibility and cast it on the shoulders of the Central authorities. But, knowing as we do something of what gees on behind the scenes, we have no hesitation in saying that at the time money was refused to be voted for charitable aid there was no notion in the mind of any one of the Councillors that such a course would compel the Government to take the matter in hand, When His Worship the Mayor met the Charitable Aid Committee he advised that body to communicate the position of affairs to the Government, and then, should no help come from that quarter, to refer the question back again to the Corporation. Mr IT. S. Tiffen objected to that bei?,g done, and said it waß evident the Mayor wanted the Committee to fight the "battles of the Corporation. It was ouly upon pressure that the Mayor at length consented to lay the matter before the Government. Then, when a favorable reply was received from the Colonial Under-Secre-tary, that is to say, when the Government authorised the- Corporation to give such aid to the Committee as might from time to time be required, and to charge the same to the Government, then it was that theMtyor and Councillors asked the ratepayers to applaud them for what had been done! Supposing an unfavorable reply had been received, what would the Corporation then have done? From what some of the Councillors have told us it is evident thnt the Committee would have obtained no assistance. The Council would have taken the high ground of refusing to vote public money for disbursement by a private body over which no control could be exercised. Now, our idea oflocal government is this: That no local government can be complete so long as the districts in which it exists fail to provide for their own pecuniary necessities. Therefore we contend that it was the duty of this Borough, as it is also the duty of all Boroughs and Coranties, to supply from out of local taxation all that may be wanted for local requirements. The Counties out of their rates having contributed their quota towards the support of the local chariti€«, tbe Borough should have performed its share of such duty. In 1878, when thei.ume question of subsidies was being agitated, in Victoria the Argus expressed these views:—Why is it that the owners of property, as represented in tbe municipal councils, are so anxious to secure a continuance of the subsidy and averse to increasing the rates ? The question has only to be formulated in order to make the reason plainly apparent. The gentlemen who own lands and houses are wise in their genoration. They see that if they were to raise the amount of the subsidy by additional local taxation, they would have to raise it from themselves alone; whereas so long an they get it from the consolidated revenue, they only pay in proportion as their number is to the whole population, and compel the thousands who have no other belongings than those they stand up in to contribute to the increase of their " capital." And then the laborer is told that there is nothing which working men might more righteously resist than a scheme of endowment which compels those who have nothing to aggrandise those who own property. The local bodies were denounced as so many bands of marauders " set on foot for the purpose of getting all tbe money they can, and spending every sixpence upon the enrichment of private individuals.'.' No doubt it is well, by way of encouraging local government, to give municipalities some assistance in their early days, but to continue the grant for all time—and this is what the local authorities are evidently aiming at—would be an economic error, and a gross injustice to the great body of taxpayers.