The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1888. CHARITABLE AID.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1813, 8 November 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1888. CHARITABLE AID.

The case of Maggie Sharp, which was concluded last Friday in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Dunedin, is interesting from many points of view. It is more than interesting to people in this district. It has inflicted on them » burden which at present looks as if likely to increase and to become permanent. Maggie Sharp came from Oamaru to Timaru in April, 1886, and was admitted into the destitute ward of the Charitable Aid Board. She was then 19 years of age, and had with her an illegitimate child 15 months old, and while in the ward she gave birth to another illegitimate child. Towards the end of October of the same year she left her two children in the destitute ward and went out to service, and in the following April she was readmitted. She continued “coming and going” to the destitute ward for some time, and on one occasion she went to live at Cracroft, on the north hank of the Rangitata, for ten days, after which she again returned. She then asked to be sent to her parents, who live at Clinton, Otago, and of the Board saw her off, with her children, on board the steamer for Dunedin. Immediately after arriving in Dunedin she became a charge on the charitable institution of that city, and soon gave birth to a third child. Thus in about three years she had three illegitimate children around her, while her own age was only about 20 years. It was not to be wondered at that the trustees of the Otago Benevolent Institution became alarmed at such rapidly iucr asing responsibilities, and looked around for some means of lightening the burden. Clause 74 of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1885, gave them the following powers;—“lf an institution under this Act affords relief to any person coming from beyond the contributing districts in which such institution is situated, it shall be lawful for the trustees or the Board having control of the institution affording relief to recover from the Board of the district from which such person came the entire cost of such relief, provided that the nerson has resided in the lastmentioned district at least six months next before he entered the institution from which he obtained relief.” Maggie Sharp resided for more than six months in Timajru before she wenL to Dunedin, and consequently the trustees of the Dunedin institution made a claim on the South Canterbury Board for £2llos, the cost of her maintenance ever since. The case came before the Resident Magistrate of Dunedin last week, and Sir Robert Stout, who appeared for the South Canterbury Board argued that “if the six months before had been broken by one day she had not been living six months next before in the district, On that point there were judicial decisions. The English law of settlement held that where a person was away from a parish for a single night 12 years’ settlement was destroyed, and the person was thrown back on the birth settlement. Here, according to Mr Lough’s evidence, Miss Sharp went to stop for two or three days at Ivlr Goodman’s at Cracroft, which was in the North Canterbury, not the South Canterbury, district. That was in 1886, in the month of May. Having stopped at Goodman’s place she broke her settlement, and consequently the defendants could not be charged.” Sir Robert’s argument appears to us to he sufficiiently convincing. The girl went away, and lived in service out of the district, it is said, for ten days, and thus broke her settlement in South Canterbury. The only question to contravene this is that her children lived in the district during her absence, but neither side noticed that. The Magistrate at Dunedin decided against Sir Robert Stout’s contention, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the full amount. It would serve no purpose to pursue the legal aspect of the question further. What we wish to say is that the South Canterbury Board has allowed itself to he imposed upon. The girl come from Otago, and at once became a charge on this district; she has gone back to Otago, but still the district must maintain her and her ever increasing family. When will the district see the end of her ? is the next most important question. First, the South Canterbury Board neglected its duty in not making a claim on the district whence she came when she first became a charge on its funds. Not to have done so shows culpable neglect and incapacity. Secondly, the part the Otago Board of Trustees has played in the affair is mean beyond expression. The girl originally belonged to Otago, and if the Trustees had any sense of decency in them they would not take advantage of a law which gave them the ; power to compel South Canterbury to | pay for her maintenance, ( The main question, however, is the ( principle which brands persons as I belonging to any district. Pro- i fossor Fawcett, in his Manual of J Political Economy, says is associated with our system t of poor relief a law of settlement t which has often bound and fettered t the laborer to the district in which he j was born. No law has, perhaps, ever i more grievously oppressed a class.” ■ 1

The Professor condemns this system in forcible terms, and shows the very bod effects it has on the social condilion of the poor, and expresses the belief that it must soon be abolished. This refers to England, where every Union is supported by local rates, and if it is condemned there as bad it must be much worse in this colony. Here it has no right to exist. The principal part of the money which goes to support hospitals and charitable institutions in this colony come out of the consolidated revenue. The Board derives its revenue from the following sources:—Ten shillings is paid out of the consolidated fund for every pound of bequests ; twenty-four shillings for every pound of voluntary contributions; and one pound for every pound of contributions received from any local authority. The contributions of local authorities are derived not from local rates but from subsidies. When the management of charitable institutions was thrown on the shoulders of a local Board the G-overnment gave subsidies to the local bodies, and these subsidies were sometimes more than the local boPes had to contribute to the Charitable Aid Board. To keep up these subsidies the tea duty was increased by twopence per lb last session. Thus, as a matter of fact, ratepayers do not contribute anything towards charity eut of local "rates—they pay their contribution in the shape of a tax on their tea. The revenue of charitable institutions is, therefore, derived from the consolidated revenue of the colony, with the exception of what it receives in the shape of voluntary contributions or bequests. Where, therefore, charitable institutions are supported by the colony at large, is it not - ' the height of absurdity to brand any one as belonging to one district more than another ? It is not a case of one district supporting its own poor the same as is the case in England. It is the whole colony—principally through the increased tea duty—which supports them, and the law whieff a person a burden on one special district ought not to exist. The unfairness of it is exemplified in the case of Maggie Sharp. It is really absurd that because she came up from Otago and spent six or twelve months in the destitute ward of the S.C. Charitable iid Board the district must support her wherever she goes. It is evident that a change is necessary, and it appears that the first thing that ought to be done is to blot out from the statute the clause which limits the area in which the poor and suffering may receive succor.