"RENDER UNTO CAESAR"

NZ Truth, Issue 1195, 25 October 1928, Page 9

"RENDER UNTO CAESAR"

Left-handed Philanthropy of Queen City Bank

1 (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.)

Depositors with the Auckland Savings Bank have every reason to be dissatisfied, and many have gioen vent to their dissatisfaction, while many more have not, either through apathy or the failure of the daily press to give space to their views.

THE position is that the Auckland Savings Bank has, during the last

few years, given away vast sums to what may quite truly be considered deserving charities. But this is done by direction of the trustees and not by acclamation of the depositors.

That such moneys can be ( disposed of plainly goes to show that 'the bank is a most profitably-run concern,, but to be so it has the depositors to thank, m collaboration with the management.

To be told by C. Bartley, through the daily press, that donations are only granted where the general public will benefit, hardly vindicates the generosity of the directorate, and though the children of working people with Avhom the bank is mainly concerned, derived the benefit from the operations of the institutions on Whom their benefactions are bestowed, as he goes on- to say, it has little to do with the policy adopted m the past.

C. Bartley also said: "One of the •trustees had remarked that the donations might be made .by the depositors paying one shilling apiece, but it was extremely unlikely they would do so. The result would be __ the same." ~~ This reads very nicely, but it carries no conviction to those who are mainly responsible m building up. the funds which are handed out over their heads by the directors or trustees. 7

Many of those institutions which have benefited m the past are more or less Government affairs, and m a country where taxation is as heavy as it is m New Zealand, and where hundreds of thousands are frittered away on fruitless enterprises, and on equally futile government, the depositors have every reason to contend that they do not grasp the equity of the trustees' generosity. . The depositors, said Mr. Bartley, numbered 130,000, and they should be. the bank's first consideration. But it hardly looks as though this is the case.

If 130,000 persons are more or less thriftily inclined, they should surely be the first to benefit by the prosperity of the bank, m much the same way that shareholders m a company would receive a bonus if the profits warranted it.

Feeble Argument

What reason can be advanced, that there should not be an increase, of interest on all money deposited? After all, it is logical to assume that a bonus to depositors, or a, higher rate of interest, would be a splendid incentive to still further thrift; and, m that regard, it may be advanced that thrift, not being generally speaking an outstanding feature of the age, is a virtue to be encouraged.

As to the rather feeble argument that those who benefit . most by the bank's benefactions are the children of working people, it may be observed that the term "working people" is' one that is somewhat overworked.

A waterside worker is no more a working person than a shipping clerk or a shop-girl, and it might be interesting to be told exactly how large .or. small a ratio of the, depositors are single persons and how many married ■with what are often termed • encumbrances?

The single and the married, each m their own way, contribute their share towards the upkeep of the country, even if it is but m the price they pay : for their .necessities and their luxuries. . • - It is not the humble investor Who is m a financial .. .-■ "" position to purchase, bonds bearing a very satisfactory, rate of interest which are free from income tax, but the rich man,, and these working people, -as "C. Bartley calls them, haye yet to be shown that these latter non-working people are inordinately lavish m their donations, or that they are ; deeply bitten by the philanthropic

Have the trustees themselves shown an example to the working people, who are the chief deposi- - tors? This is : a question which may well be asked. Boiled down to its essentials, this lavish giving: of profits earned by the thrift of the lesser wage-earner, and directly ■.< attributable to his humble hoarding,, .lacks that equity' which should distinguish such an institution, and if the depositors have shown definitely an attitude .of^disapproval it is not to be 1 wondered at, for they are legitimately entitled to hold that it is they who .first and foremost are entitled "to at least a modicum of the profit, and that charity begins at home.