The Press. MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1874.

Press, Volume XXII, Issue 2679, 9 March 1874, Page 2

The Press. MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1874.

The detention of the Pbcebe on her arrival in Lyttelton harbor with itiimigrants ex Mongol eeems to Lave excited a good deal of dissatisfaction. In some respects we are not,surprised. To the unfortunate passengers who were simply going on their affairs between Dunediu and Lyttelton, wholly unconscious, we daresay, of their involuntary companionship with, in a sanitary sense, suspicious persons, the order into quarantine must have been inexpressibly provoking. To find oneself so caught in a trap was enough to,,vex a saint, and we do not; wonder that they gave free vent to their indignation at whatmusthaveseetnedlittle short of an outrage. But almost equal : resentment has been expressed mother quarters; TbeOtago Board of Health feel themselves highly aggrieved by the action pf their Canterbury confreres. To they cry, persons whom we had pronounced free , from disease and released from quarantine, is a mark of want of confidence. It is equivalent to saying that we know nothing of our business, and that our judgment is not to be depended on. In "Wellington again, according to the "Independent" objection has been taken to the quarantining of the Phoebe on the ground of its alleged illegality, since she did not come from any port which had been proclaimed infected. And lastly, it is said that the owners of the Phoebe intend to proceed against the Canterbury authorities for damages, for losses sustained in consequence of her detention. There certainly has been a wide difference of opinion between the Boards of Health of Canterbury and Otago. The one let people out of quarantine whom the other immediately order back into it. But we stand by our own Board. The woret offence they can be charged with is a little excess of caution; and when it comes to to a question of admitting or keeping out scarlet fever, we think the~ people t)f Canterbury will agree with us that to be over careful is a fault on the right side. Besides, in the case of the Mongol immigrants, we bold that they have been fully justified by the results. It turned out that the Otago officials, in discharging them from quarantine, had neglected certain indispensable precautions. That the beds and bedding used daring the voyage in the fever-stricken ship—especially one bed in which a patient had actually died of scarlet fever—were not only allowed t<? be retained, but had not eyen been

disinfected, was an alarming discovery; and is very far from inspiring implicit confidence in those who are responsible for the sanitary arrangements of the quarantine station afe Port Chalmers.

As to the legality of the action of the Canterbury Board of Health one thing seems to be quite forgotten. They had received information that one of the immigrants who were coming from Dunedin in the Phoebe was ill with fever. This was enough to necessitate enquiry before the passengers were permitted to land. The in formation proved incorrect; still the "Health Officer, on his first inspection appears to have seen reason to doubt whether the vessel was entitled to a clean bill. He may have been wrong; but that ie not the point. The question is whether, such being his opinion, authority to detain the vessel. We think he had, under the 66th section of the Public Health Act. The clause runs as follows :—" If the " Health Officer shall apprehend any " danger to the public health from the " immediate admission of such vessel " [any vessel arriving at any port or " place in New Zealand] to entry, by " reason of there then being, or of " there having been during the voy- " age, any infectious or contagious " disease on such vessel, ... such " vessel shall be liable to perform qua- " rantine, and such Health Officer " shall immediately notify the same to " the master or other person in charge "' as aforesaid, under a penalty " not exceeding one hundred pounds " for any neglect therein." In the present case the Health Officer seems to have acted in accordance with these provisions. He saw reason to " appre- " hend danger from the immediate ad- " missioifbf the vessel to entry;" and he did as ths law directs in notifying the same to the master, and in ordering him to hoist the yellow flag. That the owners should have suffered loss or the passengers been put to inconvenience is to be regretted, but such considerations must give way to the preservation of the public safety-