The Daily Telegraph SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3602, 27 January 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 1883.

At the meeting of the newly elected Hospital Committee last Saturday the secretary was instructed to furnish a statement of receipts showing the amounts subscribed by the people and local governing bodies aud the sums received from the Government. This report, though not quite completed, is sufficiently advanced to exhibit clearly what we have all along contended, namely, that the Government has not anything like contributed since the establishment, of the now hospital a subsidy of £1 for every £1 locally subscribed. The accounts commence from the end of the year 1877, and from that date to the end of last year are as follow: — Year Locally Subsidy Contributed £sd £ s d 1577 .. 1308 18 4 .. nil 1878 .. 12 10 0 .. 1000 0 0 1879 .. 1071 10 0 .. 022 11 0 1880 .. 2004 7 7 .. 0.V2 3 7 1881 .. 1228 17 10 .. 1312 4 o 1882 ~ 1731 19 3 .. LV23 16 9 Total.. Sill 12 0 .. 5710 U> 9 —In the present incomplete state of the report in preparation we cannot vouch for the absolute correctness of the above figures, but wo have every reason to believe that they will be found within a trifle of the true sum. The amount of the subsidy is correct. In addition to the £8000 odd subscribed for building and maintenance £G3l 12s 8d have been contributed by public subscriptions for the erection of a children's ward, and we have not included the latest munificent gift to the hospital, that of Mr Douglas McLean's of £500. The total subscriptions collected from the people, and the amounts contributed by the Borough Council and the Councils of Hawke's Bay, Wairoa, and Waipawa together form a sum of about £9200. As "against this the Government have given in all only £.)710. These figures show how ignorautthe Government must have been of the amounts that had been contributed when the Hon. Mr Dick telegraphed to His Worship the Mayor that ho saw "no objection to the subscribers electing two members " instead otfottr to the committee. Such an insulting proposal could never have been made had the Government been aware of the state of the case. Again, it will be seen by a reference to the figures that even in ISB2, when the Government had distinctly agreed to give a £1 for £1 subsidy, the agreement was not kept, aud that a sum of £210 is still owing by the Treasurer. Putting on one side for a moment the £031 subscribed for the erection of a children's ward, but adding Mr McLean's gift of £-300 to the £8141, the Government may be said to owe the hospital £'2931 ; and, if we include the amount for the children's ward to the general subscriptions on the £1 for £1 subsidy, we have a claim of £3')G2 against the Government to bring their contributions up to the amount that has been locally collected since 1877. This sum the Government should feel bound in honor to pay. It is urgently needed to provide additional accommodation for patients, and we trust that no stone will bo left unturned by the Committee until the Government fulfil their agreement.