The Globe. FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1878

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1251, 22 March 1878, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1878

The conference of representatives of Boroughs and Counties to discuss the question of the support of Hospitals and Charitable Aid Institutions was unanimous in rejecting the Government proposals on the subject. The Government, in a letter to the various municipalities, proposed to contribute £1 for every £1 collected by voluntary contribution, which was to bo the sole subsidy paid by them; the expense of management, Ac., being borne by the Borough in which the institutions are situate. Now this was a very unsatisfactory proposition, and it is hardly to bo wondered at that it was rejected in favour of the more equitable plan proproposod by the Hon. John Hall. By this plan the various counties and municipalities making use of the same institutions are to bo formed into districts, and the management of the institutions committed to a Board comprising representatives of the Government and the local bodies interested. As to funds, it is proposed that the sura required from local bodies for this purpose shall be contributed by each of the Boroughs and Counties comprised in the district, according to population. For instance, the Counties of Ashley, Ashburton, and Solwyu use the Christchurch Hospital and other charitable institutions. So also do the municipalities contiguous to or situate in these counties. Therefore they would form one district, and the counties and municipalities grouped round Timaru another. As to the fairness of this proposal there can be no doubt, as each district would contribute its fair share according to population. On the other hand by the Government proposal the municipality, say of Christchurch for example, would have to bear the cost of maintaining the sick and poor of all the districts contiguous to it without one shilling being contributed by them. Of course the Christchurch Hospital being the centre, cases of accidents and illness from all parts outside the municipality naturally gravitate towards it. Of course if the scheme adopted by the Conference is in force each district pays a fair share according to its population, but uhder the Government proposal the' subsidy payable to Christchurch on account of rates levied by its ratepayers will have to suffer deduction for the benefit of the outside district. But this is not all. As his Worship the Mayor of Christchurch pointed out, supposing the city to undertake the work on the Government proposition, there is no guarantee that the 'subsidy now payable will continue. Indeed it is more than probable that in a very short time it will cease. Then we should be placed in this position that wo eliould be saddled with the cost of expensive institutions, which we could not get rid of without anything in the shape of endowment, or otherwise, to help to defray the expense. BiiC it' may be said, why undertake the management at all? Well, it simply amounts to this, that the Government say “We hold your subsidy in our hands. We shall deduct from the amount due to you a proportion of the cost of these institutions. If you like to take part iu their management, as you pay towards their support, well and good; if you do not, we shall take the money and manage them for you.” It is, therefore, very desirable that we should have a system under which an equitable contribution shall be payable by those bodies interested, and at the same time tbM all so interested should have a voice in the management of the institutions and the distribution of the funds so provided. This, we think, Mr Hall’s resolution secures, and therefore it i.S matter for congratulation that the conference adopted it. But we are inclined to believe that the conference committed an error in not having clearly ascertained its own status. The generally received idea as to the conference was that it was to consist of duly accredited representatives from the several local bodies, who would possess themselves of the minds of their respective County and Borough Councils, and come prepared to settle with some degree of finality the basis upon which it was desirable these institutions were to be managed. But when the resolutions were all agreed to, the conference resolved not to lay the result of their deliberations before the Government as representing the unanimous opinion of the local bodies so represented, but tp go back to their several Councils and ask them to endorse what had been done. Now, this seems to ns to have been a great mistake. The chances are that in the various' Councils will be found members who hold ideas on this subject, and who will propound schemes of their own. The result will probably be that instead of — as was no doubt intended —the conference laying before the Government one well digested scheme, there will be half a dozen different sets of resolutions, and, being unable to arrive at anything final, we shall perforce have the Government scheme forced on us. For this reason, agreeing as we do entirely with Mr. Hall’s proposition, we consider it a great mistake that the conference did not exercise the power, undoubtedly intended to bo given to it, and send the result of its meeting direct to the Government, as the opinion of the various local bodies represented thereat.