THE NEW HOSPITAL DISTRICT. Meeting of Delegates at Hamilton.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 171, 25 September 1886, Page 3

THE NEW HOSPITAL DISTRICT. Meeting of Delegates at Hamilton.

A meeting of delegates from the various contributory bodies in the new hospital distiict of Waikato was held in the Hamilton Borough Council Chambers on Wednesday morning last. There were present Mr W. A. Gi'ahm, (Mayor of Hamilton, in the chair) ; Mr J. B. Why to, M.H.R. ; Mr E. Lake, M.H.U.; Mr W. L. C. Williams, (Chairman, Piako County Couucil) ; j Messrs A. Primsose and S. T. Seddon, (Chairman and member, Waikato County Council) ; Capt. McPherson ; Mr Teasdale, (Waipa County Council); Mr Russell, (Cambridge Borough Council). The Chairman shortly explained the object of the meeting, which was to determine the position of the new district. He was of opinion thot the committee should, in the first place, obtain legal advice. They were all aware that the various local bodies had agreed not to pay the amount of the contributions 'claimed by the Auckland Board. They would have to consider the propriety of resisting these claims. He apologised for the absence of Mr Pegler, the Raglan representative, who was prevented by the bad roads and the state of his health from attending. The local authoriti of Raglan were, however, quite willing to abide by the decMon of the meet* ig. Mr Williams said he had fonrar 'ed a strong protest to the Government against appropriating the subsidies for the payment of hospital contributions. Considerable discussion ensued, various opinions being hazarded as to the position of the new district. In respect of the liability of the new district to contribute for the present year, Mr Russeli thought they cou*ld not dispute payment of the sum already due, but after the new board bad been elected they would stand on a different footing. Several were of opinion that payment of the money could be resisted. Mr Teasdale said the Waipa Council were fully prepared to resist payment in it were possible to do so. They regarded the claim as a most unjust one, and a special rate would be required if the money must be paid. Mr Lake said clause 11 of the Amendment Act appeared to him to give the Auckland Board power to levy a special contribution for Charitable Aid. The Waikato would not be separated from the United Board until the Ist Apiil. He did not think they could legally fight the assessment, because they had practically accepted it. He strongly advised them not to resist payment of the contributions. Mr Seddon supported Mr Lake's views. Mr Teasdale still protested that they should not pay the money. Mr Lake said it was fully clear that they could not legally resist payment. Capt. McPherson thought they should not willingly agree to send three or four thousand pounds out of the district. He thought they should maintain their former attitude of passive resistance. Mr Williams agreed with this. The Government would probably appropriate the subsides, it was true, but it would be better to submit to that than to pay voluntarily. MrPrimrose said they should continue to protest against the injustice by not paying voluntarily. Mr Russell did not see what was to be gained by passive resistance. • Mr Seddon said the course proposed was not dignified. The old Act was certainly unjust, but the Government had* done their best to remedy this in the Amendment Act. Mr Russell thought they should deal frankly with the Auckland board. Let them pay the contributions in full, and when the new board was elected in November, they could go to Adckland with a good grace and ask for a refund repre-, senting the amount for the unexpired 1 portion of the current year. Mr Williams moved " that under clause 25 appeals be made respectively by the Piako, Waikato, Waipa, and Raglan counties, and the boroughs therein, against the contributions demanded by the Thames and Auckland District Hospital Boards as being most exorbitant and not .at all commensurate ' with the benefits received by the very few patients sent to the District Hospital, and that tke local bodies named express their dissent to such unreasonable charges by each transmitting a copy of this resolution to the Hon. the Colonial Secretary, requesting that he may direct an inquiry to be made in the matter, as provided by section 25 of the Hospital and Charitable Institution Act, 1885. Mi" Teasdale seconded this. Mr Lake reiterated his advice not to resist payment. He thought there was really nothing to be gained by it, but if they did deside upon resisting, one local body should protest so that the cost might be as low as possible. Practically, however, he thought the whole thing would resolve itself into a question of law. It might be that on a technical point they might win against the United board. Mr Russell moved as an amendment that the council of Waipa appeal, the cost of such appeal to be borne proportionally by all the local bodies in the new hospital district. This was seconded by Mr Primrose. Mr Lake still contended that the time for protesting against the assessment had gone by. But presuming it had, that would not affect the other counties.

Mr Whyte tiiffcred from, this view, as the circumstances of the other counties were* much the same as those of Waipa. Mr Williams withdrew his motion and 'the amendment, now become the substantive motion, was then put. and carried. The question of bringing the Act into operation in Waikato was then introduced. Mr Lake pointed out that the representation must be fixed by the Governor. They would also notice that in the new Act provision was made for grouping districts. For instance, it was po?sible that the County of Waipa and the Borough of Hamilton could be grouped. He had been instrumental in getting the provision inserted in the Act, with the object of preventing the counties being swamped by a number of small boroughs. He of course made no special reference to the boroughs in Waikato. Mr Whyte presumed that the clause was meant to apply to small boroughs contiguous to large towns. Considerable discussion ensued. Mr Seddon moved "That the Governor be requested to apportion + he representation of the various contributory local authorities in the new hospital district as provided for by Clause 6 of * the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1P86." Mr Primrose seconded. I Mr Russell moved to add a recommendation that each contributing body have at least one representative. Mr Lake did not apprehend that the giouping provision would apply to Waikato. j Mr Russell said he wished to provide against Hamilton and Cambridge being absorbed in the contiguous counties. i Mr Teasdale did not see why the boroughs of Hamilton and Cambridge should have separate representation. Mr Whyte said he would do all he could to prevent the boroughs being prejudiced in any way. After some discussion Mr Feddon's motion was carried. Mr Rusell then moved that it be a recommendation to the Governor that the boroughs and Raglan have one, and the other three counties two representatives on the new board. This was seconded by Mr Graham. Mr Teasdale moved as an amendment that the matter be left in the hands of the Governor. This was seconded by Mr Primrose. There voted for ' the amendment Messrs Teasdale and Primrose, and for the motion Messrs' Russell, Williams, Seddon, and the Chairman. It having been agreed, that the Chairman be empowered to communicate with the Government suggesting a day for the election of members ami another for the first meeting of the new board, the meeting broke up — Waikato Times.