Rangitikei Advocate. SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8713, 12 January 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Dk. Ewaet, superintendant of Wei lington hospital, who has recently returned from a visit to England, in the course of which he visited many of the hospitals there, returns to this country with the impression that New Zealand has little to learn from the Old Country in the matter of hospital appointments or treatment. This need cause us little surprise as our hospitals here are all comparatively young institutions, and in their erection and management it has been possible to make use of all the experience obtained in countries and to avoid the errors which often arise in long established foundations. It is to be remembered also that the I hospitals here have what is practically an unlimited power of drawing on the public purse, while in England they are supported entirely by voluntary contributions and bequests. Dr. Ewart complains that while the buildings m England have a very fine outward appearance the comfort of patients is not always considered. For example, in one hospital the meals -were waiting ready served up half an hour before the dinner hour. Dr. Ewart admits that even in the Wellington hospital he has found it difficult to get the meals served to the patients in a hot condition, and in the enormous hospitals at Home, which often have to serve the wants of a population larger than that of this island, the difficulty must_ be much intensified. The complaints he makes of understaffing may probably bo explained by the perennial lack of funds in the English hospitals. The fact that dressings ate applied by medical students instead of by nurses as in New Zealand would also tend to the reduction of the nursing staff. Even if we fed that Dr, Ewart has been somewhat captious in his criticism it is at any rate satisfactory to find that New Zealand hospitals are in a state of efficiency, and we feel sure that under the charge of Dr. Valintine, the newly appointed Inspector of Hospitals, nothing will be left undone to maintain and improve their present high stui’tDnl of winch wo may justly be proud.

Commenting on tho Advances to Workers Act tho Napier Daily Telegraph makes the following interesting comparison between tho proposals made by Government and tho terms offered by building societies. “The following is what building societies do as a matter of business, out of which they make profits ranging from sis to eight per cent per annum. If a would-be borrower owns a section of land worth £SO, a building society will advance him £l5O with which to build. This he may repay in 12 years at the rate of 1 a small fraction under 7s a week and thus become his own landlord by means of periodical payments for 12 years of less than he probably would have to pay in rent to a landlord for a similar property. At all events, and leaving out of the question comparative payments of rental and of instalments, ho is enabled to become the owner of a freehold house on easy terms. If he owns a section worth £'ioo he can borrow up to £3OO and will then repay during a terra of 12 years at tho rate of 14s per week. Under the Government scheme if a man has a section worth £SO they will also lend him £l5O to build. But their term of repayment is 36£ years and at the rate of 3s 6d per week for a £l5O house, or 7s per week for a £3OO house. But which is preferable—for a man in his working years to purchase for himself a £3OO house by paying what is practically a rental of 11s per week, or to pay for a similar house 7s per week over such a lengthened span of his life as 361 years ? Obviously tho shorter period is the better. Farther, the advantages offered by building societies are based upon strictly business lines of profit-making for the societies. Government do not require io make profit, and should not make profit. Hence they could offer far better terms than the building socic ties instead of worse terms. What is wanted is a revision of the scale of repayments provided in the Act, together with optional terms of repayments by monthly instalments over periods ranging from 10 years to 25 years.”'