The Heilding Star. THURSDAY, NOV. 19, 1885. Hospital & Charitable Aid Board

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 69, 19 November 1885, Page 2

The Heilding Star. THURSDAY, NOV. 19, 1885. Hospital & Charitable Aid Board

Ovh contemporary the Wanganui Chronicle of yesterday reviewed the proceedings of the above Board, on the whole, very fairly, if we may judge from its own report, and that of the Herald. But it is betrayed by its local bias into an amusing— because evidently unconscious — piece of inconsistency; therein following the lead given by the Wanganui members of the Board at the meeting. It must be understood that through a blunder in the Act, the Patea district can send, if it chooses, fourteen representatives to the Board, as against nine from the remainder of the Charitable Aid District. The Patea people, however, wish to work their Charitable Aid themselves, neither meddling with the rest of the district nor being meddled with by it. This boon our contemporary readily concedes them, as did the United Board. The rest of the district, however, south of "Wanganui, also wishes for the same privilege and openly expressed its wish, to which some demur was made by Mr Peat, a resident in, and we presume a ratepayer of, Wanganui Borough, though representing Wanganui County on the Board— a demur in which the Chronicle, in its fear for local interests, evidently, and inconsistently, sympathizes. Now, if the principle of letting each local governing body manage its own Charitable Aid, so far as is consistent with the Act, be a good one, and we think it is, why should not each district reap the advantage of it ? What is sauce for the Patea goose surely should be sauca for the gander of the southern end. The irritation complained of by th» Chronicle arose out of the fact that every disposition was shown to let the Patea people, with their preponderating voting power, go their way: in peace, while there was an evident inclination to retain the southern district in a union it does not approve of. This appears to have been the reason why Mr Maoabthub pointed out, that though not possessed of the heavy majority of Patea, still as against Wanganui the southern end could insist on the extension to the rest of the district of the principle so readily conceded to Patea. However, on an appeal being made to the Patea members, their original proposition, dealing with their district only, was withdrawn in favor of the more {general one made by Mr Thykhe, which left the distribution of charitable aid in the same position as heretofore, viz., under the control, practically, of each local body. As for the fear of Mr Peat that paupers will gravitate to Wanganui from other districts, we think it groundless. There will be no inducement to do so when each local body is known to have power and funds to deal with local cases. Nor is the difference between the size of Wanganui and other towns in the district so marked as to render operative a cause which may possibly produce the above effect in the districts of which Wellington, Christchurch. Auckland, andPunedin are the centres. Charitable aid will be more economically and judiciously administered by. the sub-divisional bodies than by a central organization, and we are glad to know that this view filially prevailed at the Board, Mr Peat slope protesting. There is no wish on the part of members at this end to do anything which is not equitable. They are quite willing to maintain their own poor, but naturally object to burdening their ratepayers with the maintenance of the poor of other places. We agree with the Chronicle that this course should be fairly tried first, and if any injustice results to Wanganui the country members will gladly unite to find a remedy. . <