The Daily Telegraph WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1882.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3519, 18 October 1882, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1882.

In a letter recently received by the Cbairmau of the Hospital Committee, the Under-Secretary for the Colony states that it ia a mistake to suppose that a promise had ever been made by the Government to defray the whole cost of maitenance of any hospital. And then be explains that, on an account being furnished of all receipts for the quarter commencing after March 31, any indebtedness would be refunded by the Government. Mr G. S. Cooper gives we think, an interpretation of Major Atkinson's language that would never occur to an unofficial mind. In his financial statement tbe Colonial Treasurer said : — " Tbe total public and known private expenditure upon hospitals and in charity last year was, in round numbers. £88,000, and for practical purposes we may assume that an equal amount will be required this year. This sum was made up by contribution from the Consolidated Fund, £29,000 ; stoppages from subsidies from locrfl bodies, £37,000 ; contributions from locjil boards and from the public, £_2,000. The present system —want of system I ought rather to say—of providing necessary funds is irritating and unfair to most, if not all, parties concerned in the chaitable administration of the colony ; and it is, I think, clear that the time has come when this important subject will have to be dealt with upon 6ome comprehensive principle. * * * The Government propose, pending further consideration of tbis subject, to take the whole cost ol hospitals upon tbe Consolidated Fund, and for this purpose I shall have to ask for a vote of £50,000 for their maintenance? The Under-Secre-tary states that the words we have quoted do not convey a promise on the part of the Government to defray tbe whole cost of the maintenance of any hospital. If Major Atkinson did not intend to make such a promise, why did he ask for and obtain the vote of £50,000 ? The House, at all events, understood that ia voting tbe money for the purposes for which it was asked the Government intended to carry out the promise conveyed in the Financial Statement, and to expend the sum in the faithful discharge of it. We do not see that there is room for any mistake about the nature of the promise. If there be no promise on record other than that contained in the Financial Statement, and if that promise is to be regarded as no promise at all, we are under the apprehension that times will be made pretty lively for Major Atkinson next session. Bnt the fact is that a distinct promise was made, and is intended to be carried out. We protest against any Under-Secretary so interpreting the intentions of the Government as to create confusion in the administration of local affairs. That there is confusion in regard to tbe maintenance of the hospital no one will deny. If we are to accept the Under - Secretary's statement as official, we venture to think that there is not a person to be found in the whole of the colony who could say positively on what basis tbe hospital was to be maintained. We only know tbis, tbat the hospital has got to be kept up, and that, if no one subscribes, and if the local bodies cease to contribute towards its maintenanco, the Government will have to take it over and defray the whole cost of the institution. What object then has the Under-Secretary to serve in muddling the minds of all concerned ?