264
bu berotusetud ove? bluo in
anishieste ut atloon el, ata s ag"
Jonia:onim juez ells wate
Hon, Col. Sec.
1 long it be ofIs at oI9.5 mol ozjeta zate o
HED AJNA. off .esuut beaoine and
AGJJMI A3 .it od og hub.uodut at
-T
. 03't
:vt!
Taipa ett to anetdɔ t
Jo tetice D To subinda 0.13 b.. unutdrowe och u$.162 jeta e tj
Juukota eins og at pagnon Iunt of wild Stedus “ sum 1'.t'
VISA,Sle' sent "o eris os Indian bout ybtødua a onusno![e evef strio la sordnutjat: 5' ‚yfutbeo vng be)*
at b. :losor a at 20 2.ole Batyti
3: "WOTIU VISIVE: igivole oJ -benori na loja ́m ut qɔle's id
.beat[muo¢ ni zivo
1996 DJ SLUGTOMU at 1837.
Va ubanez htɔa ou +ed Jan 7 babəd
.it
ta due men's s
Jati voy eldvons jou !Itw I
'S andud any do kaeng afrejaci retski, tow door wod wɔni Moldaude zuoy e a' je vladɔze [[kw (JDI
viata la beďng i ovą"
estrod ¥!【*unu ྃ།
ht
„Jiejuonat o sutient = 'j
tilo 7,elelina Juur Begge wild 110 Blstht to ed jayno na katovbo at goy •nolod aŭng” við gan oj e boldaı ayıb qnt can dra datz .0.9 ads Jo 10tJ¬atovan
V 20
+
x. I
Fold ban quero y "Iver Boy Kindas den 7 at 70339. T
guit at 's beatu, ɔnen org'
2. Estat to.w altavan 354 10 120d
JAAN ALTAATTOú od benarends „D.va jutot
"o qju.it: heaɔ[não n
bu Latar 15. ga staza, 1,OTUA FIS
E POIS PC
tha Boy him (Jotun Zolut
Cadê vớc khi gazit sues of jou agt jî an Ista stliðn
Laetvæïmansi,7 (ha)
ETIJOS Isven
Rent allowances.
The scheme has been very freely discussed and criticised; and I venture to submit the following notes on the general atti- tude of the service (gathered from many discussions) for H.E's. consideration,
While the Government Service is grateful for the fact that their appeal for relief has had consideration, the scheme of Rent Allowances as now approved compels serious criticism and does not give satisfaction. The main reasons for the dissatisfac- tion are confined in the following criticisms, which are quite generally made in the Service -
1. It was relief that was asked for and required, with a
house allowance merely as the most convenient mediun for securing it at once.
The lodging side of the case appears completely to have overshadowed the Relier side; with the result that the general effect of the regulations is that while H.E. can give permission to Civil Servants to live in better houses than they have so far found they can afford and which perhaps they may not be able to keep up - the actual relief in some cases becomes $10 and even no dollars at all, per month. The more careful a man has been or has to be in the
matter of rent, the less relief he gets; for it can hardly becalled "relier" to tell a man who is barely able to keep up (say) a $60 house that the Government will pay his rent above that figure if he takes a
$200 one.
2. Rule 7, (the "sole occupant" rule) is considered as
working almost unreasonably, and as having lost sight
still further of the idea of relief. A married man,
with his family at Home being educated, is put to
greater expense than when his family is with him in the Colony. He invariably economises (perforce) by
A