SOLDIERS’ CONVALESCENT HOME.

Southland Times, Issue 18832, 27 May 1920, Page 2

SOLDIERS’ CONVALESCENT HOME.

To the Editor.

Sir, —I always understood that there were two sides to every question. Your reporter evidently wishes the public to thoroughly digest one side before he places the other before them. Now sir, I noticed an advertisement in your valuable paper on May 19 inviting delegates from country branches of the Red Cross Society to a meeting to discuss the future carrying on of the Soldiers’ Convalescent Home and the combined intelligence of the 30 delegates is dismissed by your reporter in three lines as follows; “Country delegates referred to several cases where men were unable to work owing to war disabilities and were only receiving small pensions.” Y'our reporter evidently wishes to convey the impression that the meeting unanimously decided that the Home should go. But was that the mind of the majority present? Is it not a fact that the hon. treasurer of the Red Cross Society in a vigorous speech maintained that the Home would in future be more necessary than ever; and also that several country delegates protested against the closing of the Home. Mr Anderson in his opening speech says that of £B6OO cash in hand “no member of the executive would have any say in the disposal of the funds.” Might 1 ask Mr Anderson who in that case will have any say? Or will the Minister of Internal Affairs simply say “You must spend this money in purchasing motor ambulances or you must hand it over to me for disposal as I think fit?” Further on Mr Anderson is reported to have said “If it was possible to carry- on the Home it must be assumed that there would be a sufficient number of patients to warrant such a course.” I and others who subscribed to the funds maintain that if only one man is benefited it would warrant the Home being kept open. Miss Birss has evidently been too engrossed in listening to Mr Anderson to .know that the Home had been closed for about a week when she spoke. You, sir, in your leader arc evidently a bit mixed, as you do not seem to understand that it is not an hospital but a Convalescent Home the Red Cross Society wish to nan and I hope will run for the benefit of those who gave their health that we may live in peace. Thanking you in anticipation for the valuable space occupied in the discussion of this (to me and many others) vital question.—l am, etc., GREATLY INTERESTED. May 25.

To the Editor. Sir, —In the Southland Times of May 24 I looked with interest for the account of the Red Cross meeting on Saturday. In common with other country delegates 1 was astonished at the account given. The chairman’s speech, Mr Hawke’s and Miss Birss’s remarks were given, but Mr Hodgkins’s very excellent speech in favour of carrying on the Convalescent Home was almost entirely ignored. The feeling amongst the country delegates was undoubtedly strongly in favour of providing a convalescent home or

hostel where sick, and weak men (unfit for work) especially from country districts,

should receive the care ami attention they require to restore them to normal health. With the sum of £B6OO in hand, money raised solely for the benefit of the sick and wounded soldiers, much might be done to help them back to health and strength. As none of the women on the Red Cross executive committee made any remark, one wonders what their scheme is.—l am, etc. COUNTRY DELEGATE. May 25.