“A TENDER SPOT.”

Taranaki Daily News, 30 August 1922, Page 7

“A TENDER SPOT.”

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Tn a somewhat ambiguous letter appearing in your issue of the 24th inst., under the above heading, Mr. Alf. Corklll seeks to justify “the few remarks” he made at a conference of local body delegates recently held at Eltham. I admit the importance of that conference and also of the remit that was being discussed. I am also well aware of the attitude Mr. Connett and others took in that discussion. Does Mr. Corkill wish to infer that the attitude these gentlemen took in expressing their views in a very proper remit was a justification for him to make an unwarrantable attack on the Taranaki Hospital Board, or, as he puts it, “So far as the New Plymouth hospital is concerned?” What actuated Mr. Corkill to depart from the subject that was being discussed and make an opportunity to cast invidious reflections on- a kindred local body? Was it that being out of his depth and unable to contribute anything helpful to the discussion, he sought to pose as a man of wider vision, and saw a .solution of the question was to be found, not by considering the most equitable way of collecting the levy, but by hauling to court the halt, the lame, and -the penniless, and so make the hospital self-supporting, thus enabling ratepayers to recoup some of their losses? Mr. Corkill’s statement that owing to the board’s laxity—or is it Indifference?—in collecting accounts, well-to-do people evade payment of hospital charges is not in accord with facts, and further. I deny that Mr. Corkill’s authority for making such a statement is th* best. Then Mr. Corkill changes ground hy pleading to have been misreported- and says his remarks that money was being spent in beautifvfng the hospital and grounds were meant to refer to the "fancy work” on the outside of the nurse’s home. He admits the justice of the ’•osentment shown by certain members of the board, and also absolves the board from all blame of needless expenditure, even if five thousand had been snent in external embellishment of the nurses’ home, which, of course. Is ridiculous. Surely Mr. Corkill knows the nurses* home was designed and the contract let long before local bodies felt that necessity for drastic retrenchment, even before the period of highest prosperity was reached. No, this could not have been Mr. Corkill’s meaning. I am not surprised if the reporter did fail to grasp the sense of what was meant, hut am inclined to think he got somewhere near it. Further, unless Mr. Corkill again pleads to have been misrepresented, he d’d not ask the hoard to exercise more care and economy, hut charged it with lacking business methods in general, and with lavishly spending in particular. How does Mr. Corkill’s plead for economy coincide with what he practices? What about that few hundreds of pounds recently squandered in useless —T had almost said, vindictive—litigation with a neighboring county? Really, Mr. Corkill, you are the limit in inconsistencies. Though I cannot speak from the lofty position of a county chairman with Inside knowledge. yet, as a ratepayer. I know something about the difficulty people find in paying their rates, also, as a member of the hospital hoard. T know something about these same people when incapacitated by accident, or stricken with sickness, they rightly seek asylum in our splendid hosnital. where financial circumstances make no difference to the treatment they receive. Sir. these are the people Mr. Corkill would place under the mill stone, and grind them for their, just debts that ratepayers, he as one of the biggest, may recoup their losses. Contributing local bodies have a remedy for outstanding accounts, and can, in a measure.

regulate their expendture to meet their income. Hospital boards have no recourse, but must njeet all demands made on them. The harder the times the greater are the demands that are made. Finally, Mr. Corkill, in face of the facts that you are chairman of a county that pays, or rather, collects for the hospital thirteen hundred per annum, and that incidentally you are one of the biggest,—should that have a capital B?—ratepayers, you are interfering in what does not concern you, and putting your finger—or is it your foot? certainly it cannot be your head—into other people’s business. Briefly, your duty is to collect that money, and pay it over to the Hospital Board. It then becomes the duty of that "wonderful body of men,” who are all elected by the ratepayers of contributing bodies, to spend it wisely and well, and to be answerable to the Department, which contributed half the board's revenue, but has no representation thereon, for the manner in which it conducts its business and performs the duties for which it is elected. If, as you say, your remarks made at Eltham did not reflect on the Inglewood representatives, then, of course, you made no reflection on the board, and it is not necessary to prove 'that your statements, which, of course, were never made, are erroneous. What could that reporter haye been thinking about? Now, Sir, I will agree with one part of Mr. Corsili's letter—the heading. True, he found a tender spot, but only by striking a blow below the belt.—l am, etc., S. VICKERS. Omata, August 26.