LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH.

Cromwell Argus, Volume VII, Issue 331, 14 March 1876, Page 6

LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH.

An adjourned meeting of the Board of Health was held in the Council Chambers on Tuesday evening, 7th inst., the business being consideration of a letter addressed to the Board by Dr Stirling. On the Board—the members present being the Chairman (Mr Jolly) and Messrs Arndt, Brown, Taylor, and Talboys,—taking their seats, several ratepayers and "a reporter entered the room, on which arose the question whether the meeting should be public or a private one. The public were requested to retire while the question was considered, and it was resolved after discussion to admit the public. The chairman said the meeting had been specially convened for the purpose of considering a letter from Dr Stirling, and also of having that gentleman's personal attendance, in order that he might make more clear certain portions of the letter. He would read the letter from the doctor, addressed to the Secretary, and also certificate of Mrs Mason's death enclosed : Cromwell, March 6, 1876.

Dear Sir, —As I art aware that some misconception exists, especially as regards certain members of the Local Board, in reference to the cause of death of the late Mrs J. H. Mason, I herewith enclose a copy of the certificate as given by me to the Registrar. I may inform the Board that 1 have spoken to Mr D. Jolly on the matter (on the 3rd inst.), and. that he promised to institute an enquiry into the circumstances of the case, which enquiry or investigation was in my opinion demanded, considering the circumstances of the case throughout, and which I am sorry to say I have failed to obtain, being doubtless considered not a disinterested party by Mr Jolly. As to the case, at the time of my first visit on the morning of the 29th ultimo, I may distinctly and positively state it was one of enteric fever, fully developed, and in my opinion a hopeless one as regarded recovery. The disease was, as I say, fully developed, and could not have been of recent origin ; in fact, the case was one" of fever in its last" stage. That this matter was (or is) one not to be glossed over, a casual perusal of the Public Health Act will show. In truth, I think I have reason to say that if such occurrences are permitted to pass unchallenged by the Local Board, that Board may be practically considered to be defunct, or worse than useless as regards the efficient protection of the Public Wealth,—which I trust, however, is not the case in the present instance. Trusting, dear Sir, you will kindly bring the matter under the notice of the Board, and "so cause any misconception that may exist to be removed, I am, dear Sir, Yours faithfully, Robert W. Stirling.

I may mention tHfc having failed in my endeavor to have the matter thoroughly ventilated {and the p.m. made by a "disinterested" medical man), i have made a post mortem, and found the case to be one of weli-marked enteric fever, the lung complication having been a secondary

matter ; no other disease of an acute or immediately dangerous nature being in existence. R. W. S.

There are a few cases of typhoid and gastric fever at present,—enough to point to the necessity there exists for strict sanitary measures, where they can be applied. R. W. S. Mr Jolly then proceeded to enter into a personal explanation regarding that portion of the letter referring to himself. He said that Dr Stirling informed him there had been a fatal case of enteric fever in the town, — that of Mrs Mason; At the doctor's request he (Mr Jolly) gave instructions for a meeting of the Board of Health to be called, understanding the medical man to mean that that body must look to the sanitary condition of Mason's residence and the town generally. A meeting was held the same evening, and it was resolved that the Board make a personal inspection of the town. A letter to that effect was sent to Dr Stirling on the 6th inst. On the same day the above letter was handed in by Dr Stirling to the Secretary to the Board, and a meeting called for the same evening to consider it. At that meeting it was resolved to adjourn proceedings till next night, in order to have Dr Stirling present. He would now call on that gentleman to explain what he meant by his letter, but before doing so hoped members would divest themselves of all outside rumors and gossip, and calmly consider the contents of the letter itself. He would call Dr Stirling. [At this stage Messrs Grant and Aitken took their places at the table, constituting a full meeting of the Board.] Dr Stirling pointed out that in his remarks Mr Jolly had overlooked the word " misconception" in the letter. He (Dr Si) had nothing to communicate in addition to the letter except a few facts. On the morning of the 3rd inst., after Mrs Mason's death, he called on Mr Mason, and suggested the desirability of having a post mortem by a disinterested person, and also advised Mason to seek the advice of Mr Coroner Simpson on the matter, and let him (Dr Stirling) know the result. Afterwards met Mr Jolly,' and asked him what steps the Board of Health meant to take in Mrs Mason's case. Told him the case had been there over a week, and none of the neighbors made cognisant that a dangerous and contagious disease existed. Mr Jolly said the Board would take steps to see to the sanitary condition of Mason's house. Told Mr Jolly this had already been done by his (the Doctor's) orders. Also told Mr Jolly that he thought the case should be mentioned to Mr Simpson, and that he had advised Mason to apply to the Coroner. Having mentioned these things to Mr Jolly, he (Dr Stirling) was led to believe that a thorough investigation would be instituted, and he had put off the post mortem till a late hour in the evening to see whether any steps would be taken. Mason told him the result of his interview with the Magistrate, and also that Mr Jolly had said to him that there was no necessity for a post mortem, as it was prompted merely through professional jealousy. He (Dr Stirling) might mention that he should not have laid the matter before the Board only for the action of Mr Jolly not being fair and above-board. Mr Jolly had fully stated to the Board the reasons for calling them together. He felt in a peculiar position as chairman, not being in & position to ask questions. However, they were there to deal with the letter before them, and that only. The speaker then again went into an explanation of the conversation he had with Dr Stirling, and the meaning he took therefrom. He would ask Dr Stirling whether he had hinted in any way that a special enquiry or post mortem should be held, or anything beyond an ordinary meeting of the Board ? Dr Stirling—You omitted to state that on my suggesting that you should consult Mr Simpson, you replied, " Oh, leave it; the Board will deal with it." That of itself showed that something more was demanded than an ordinary meeting of the local Board.

Mr Jolly could honestly say that no such impression was conveyed to his mind. When Mason spoke to him about consulting with Mr Simpson, he (the speaker) not knowing a post mortem was wanted, told him it was unnecessary and liable to create a panic. Was not aware he had ever said anything about professional jealousy. Never had heard it was necessary to have a post mortem when death was known to be the result of fever. He considered that Dr Stirling was shirking the real object of his letter. Dr Stirling said that when he was first called in to attend the case he found that no precautions had been taken to avoid the danger of people going in and out, the closet was uncleaned, and, generally, all sanitary measures neglected. First attended the case on 29th ulfc., and reported to Mr Jolly on 3rd inst.

The Chairman—So that notwithstanding a dangerous case of fever existed, you did not report same till four days after your first attendance ?

Mr James Taylor thought it due to Dr Stirling to explain that on the day Mrs Mason was sent to the hospital (29th ult( that gentleman reported to him as a member of the local Board, and he (Mr Taylor) reported same to Mr Jolly ah hour after. The Doctor said the woman had been wrongly treated, and that her case was a very dangerous one—indeed, he questioned whether she would survive the journey to the hospital. In reference to the expression "glossed over" in his letter, Mr Jolly asked what it meant —was Dr Stirling not aware that a meeting of the Board was called immediately he reported 1 Dr Stirling was aware a meeting was called, but he had heard that it was stated

at the Board that fever had only set in some twenty-four hours before Mrs Mason's death. He declined to give his authority. The Chairman —Has any other case of typhoid fever ever been treated by you and not reported to the Board ? Dr Stirling—Yes, but in that case (Mr Wrightson's child) the neighbors were made aware it was fever, and all proper precautions were taken. You could not have thought Mrs Mason's case an ordinary one when the Coroner was mentioned.

Mr Taylor remarked that there was no case before them at present. It had not been shown that another medical man had been attending the case under notice, although rumor spoke of the woman having been treated for a disease other than fever. There was nothing to deal with if no specific charge was laid.

In reply* to Mr Talboys, Dr Stirling said he did not consider it necessary to report in writing to the Board—it was sufficient to report verbally to a member of that body. — Had told a member of the Board that he (Dr Stirling) had been informed that another medical man had been treating Mrs Mason for a different complaint. Mr Grant—lf you thought a post mortem necessary by a disinterested party, how came you to give certificate of death ? Dr Stirling—Because I knew the cause of death.

Mr Joseph Mason was then called and gave evidence to the effect that up till the time Dr Stirling was called in he had no idea that his wife was suffering from fever. Children were running in and out. Dr Corse was in attendance before Dr Stirling, and gave the complaint as quite otherwise than fever. He said witness' wife was only " slightly feverish." Mr Jolly did say a post mortem was not needed, as it was only prompted by professional jealousy. Dr Stirling would like to know whether such remarks were to be allowed from the Chairman of the Board of Health.

Mr Jolly was not aware that he had made use of the expression "professional jealousy," nor was he always acting as Chairman of the Board of Health. As a private citizen he claimed the right to express his own opinions.

This concluded the examination above report of which is necessarily much condensed, the proceedings being somewhat irregularly conducted—and the Board went into committee.

After considering the evidence adduced, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:—That this Board is of opinion that the charge brought against its members and chairman by Dr Stirling in his letter of the 6th March, 1876, have not been proved, the evidence taken showing that the local Board of Health has not in any way neglected its duty.

Feeling aggrieved at the finding of the Board, Mr E. A. Drury next day went round the town with a memorial calling for a public meeting to consider the judgment of the Board. About twenty names were appended, and the bellman convened the meeting. At the appointed hour, a large number of persons congregated both inside and outside the Council Chambers. After some difficulty in procuring a chairman, Mr J. Marsh consented to act. Mr E. A. Drury was the principal speaker, and opened what he termed " his case" in a carefullyprepared and well-spoken oration of the ultra-democratic class, in which he was particularly bitter in his invectives against wealth and social position and highly laudatory of brains and ability. He was very severe on the gentlemen composing the Board of Health, and vigorously denounced them as enemies of mankind generally : in fact, they (the members) were, according to the orator, prepared to " wade through slaughter to a throne," and do many other horrible things if the people did not at once and for ever assert their prerogative of right and might. Naturally enough, the people were worked up to a high pitch of enthusiasm, and an attempt by Mr MacKellar to throw oil upon the troubled waters was unavailing, —the Chairman Oyho, by the way, fulfilled I his difficult duty with much tact and forbearance) ruling that the following motion by Mr Drury was carried :—This meeting is of opinion that the finding of the local Board of Health, reflecting upon Dr Stirling and his letter of 6th instant, was directly antagonistic to the evidence adduced ; and further, that Dr Stirling did not receive the courtesy which to gentlemen is usually conceded.