“PUSHING” TRUST ESTATE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 755, 30 August 1929, Page 6

“PUSHING” TRUST ESTATE

ALLIANCE OBJECTS TO PUBLIC TRUSTEE’S METHODS ADVERTISING ALE AND STOUT (THE S UK'S Parliament ary Reporter J WELLINGTON, Today. A deputation condemning the publicity methods of the Public Trustee in. advertising the products of the Macarthy Estate waited on the Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, yesterday. The deputation was composed of members of the Standing Committee of the Xew Zealand Alliance and protested strongly against the pamphlet issued by the Public Trustee, entitled “The Guiding Light," and advertising Macarthy’s ale and stout. The alliance regarded this specialised form of publicity as an ill-omen if it were going to be applied to every trading concern the Public Trustee might have to administer. The alliance also objected to the beverages being referred to as “bodybuilding” and “health-giving," when ascertained scientific fact concerning the effect of alcohol on the human organism said otherwise. What issued from such an office should not be calculated to mislead the people on a vital matter of public physical and moral health. The alliance further objected to this being done In the name of charity. The Government was asked to follow the action of the Imperial authorities, which had discontinued advertisements in post offices and post office publications. Protest was also made against the action of the Public Trustee, while running a brewery and pushing the sale of liquor, preventing his officers from taking a part in the alliance campaign because the alliance had been described—and wrongly so, it was submitted —as a political organisation. In reply, the Prime Minister : said he would bring the representations of the deputation under the notice of the Public Trustee. As Minister in charge of the Public Trust Office he was bound to protect the Public Trustee in his financial relations with the people through the Government. He could not, therefore, criticise any of the observations made in regard to the Macarthy estate, excepting to say that the whole law in New Zealand would require to be altered if effect were to be given to the suggestions advanced. The Public Trust Office was an institution available for everyone who wished to have his will administered. In the present case a brew had died and left the administration of his estate in the hands of the Public Trustee. The question then was whether the country should deprive the Public Trustee of the right to handle the will of anyone who chose to select him as administrator because it opened up the very contentious matter of the trade versus nolicence. In those circumstances it would require legislation to restrict the functions of the Public Trustee, and that would open the door in a very wide way. The Public Trustee was appointed by Act and lie had to do his duty and he could only be relieved of it by the Parliament of the country. The Minister in charge could not relieve him of it or from undertaking the' obligation placed on him by the late Mr. Macarthy. The sentimental side, of course, carried weight, but the practical side also came in, and the Prime Minister said he -was personally powerless in the matter of the Public Trustee’s administration of wills. He would, however, direct the attention of the Public Trustee to the representations.