MILITARY INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 135, 25 February 1918, Page 7

MILITARY INQUIRY

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

THE INQUIRY AT CHRISTCHURCH

REPORT ON DR. THACKER'S CHARGES

The Military Court of Inquiry set up by the Officer Commanding the Canterbury District to investigate the statement made by Dr. Thacker, M.P., that military medical examiners in Christchurch had been "personally insulting in their remarks to recruits" has submitted a lengthy report' dealing in detail with the charges that were investigated. Tho important portions of tho report are as follow:— Case of J. M'Anulty.—ln the opinion of the Court, this complaint, which refers to an incident subsequent to Dr. Thacker's telegram of November 15, 1917 (containing tho words quoted above), is trivial. The reservist was apparently antagonistically disposed to-' wards the Medical Examining: Board becauso his medical certificate was not accepted immediately as a reason for withholding further examination. This examination appears to have been conducted with all due regard to military requirements and the feelings of the reservist. ■Case of S. Cooper.— I This reservist .made no complaint against'his classifibut felt "grossly and offensively insulted" when he, attempted to hop on a leg injured . eight months previously. .He states' that the examiner said: "Enough of your damned nonsense; you can hop better than that." 'There was no evidence to corroborate this, and Colonel Ewart denies over having used such language to any recruit qt any time- Cooper's attitude in the Court appeared to us to be one of antagonism towards the military examiners. We would also point out- that he had no communication with Captain Thacker before Jannary 4, .1918, so that this case also cannot be ..adduced in support of the" telegram' of November 15, 1917. Case of H. F. -Wo6d —This reservist gave the Court the impression that he was antagonistically disposed towards the medical examiners. He felt insulted because he, thought that LieutenantColonel Ewart was questioning the bona fides of his certificate. This certificate was dated June 17, and as the examination took place on November 4, 1917, Lieutenant-Colonel Ewart states that his cross-examination with regard to the certificate was intended to prove or disprove its genuineness. He states also that the. recruit and himself • were . friendly during the examination as far, as he was. aware, and denies that he sneered in any way concerning the treatment or the certificate which the'recruit had received. In 'the Court's opinion the recruit was evidently mistaken in his idea of the attitude of Lieutenant-Colonel. Ewart. • Evidence was taken in the case of W. A. ,P. Mills. As his sole cause of complaint, was objection to his -classification, .the Court was of opinion that the case was outside its order of refer- ' ence. i

The cases of Jones, Ellis, Peters, and Ostler were considered by the Court to be outside the order of reference,'and were .not proceeded with. Case of H. Emmanuel.— I This discharged soldier complained that laxity was shown by the medical examiners in not subjecting him to further examination to corroborate the certificate which was inspected by them as evidence of his state of health. The Court is of opinion that the examination was adequate, and that the classification of the re-

servist was made in good faith. Case of Bugler W. H. Burrows.—Th® complaint 'of Bugler W. '11. Burrows; is that he.was insulted by Colonel T. A. Mac Gibbon when a prisoner arrested while on sick leave, in that lie did in an insulting hianner order Burrows not

to visit Captain Thacker, threatening him lyith solitary confinement if he did so. . The Court would_ point out that Burrows in cross-examination admitted that he was not at, the, time on sick, leave. He was absent from camp without leave, having on his own initiative proceeded to Christchurch, instead of staying in Wellington for treatment. The charge against Colonel Mac Gibbon, of having spoken in an insulting manner, is' not substantiated bv Burrows, and . the evidence of tho military policeman, Corporal Shadbolt, and the attendant at Colonel Macrooms, Nurse Hasaal, directly negatives it. Colonel Mac Gibbon admits having ordered Burrows not to vis;t Captain Thacker, and pleads that tile regulation dealing with medical attendance on invalid soldiers justifies him in having done so. Although in tho Court's opinion Colonel MacGibbou inay have exceeded his powers in this matter, nevertheless, tlie Court considers thatvthe order itself did not constitute an insult. With regard to the alleged threat of solitary confinement, the evidence of Burrows that Colonol Mac Gibbon made a stipulation that if ho promised not to visit Captain Thacker he would be released from detention has not been confuted. Tho Court is of opinion that Burrows was justified in assuming that this stipulation constituted a, threat. Burrows also claims insult in that though on parole lie was prevents ed from visiting his own family there. The Court would point out that ho was not on parole, but temporarily released from detention, oil conditions which he broke.

P. J. M'Namara.—This reservist is a man of obviously nervous and highly, strung temperament-, and the Court suggests that Lieutenant-Colonel Fitz. (Herald was ill-advised in making audible asides to his colleague, the tenor of which might bo misconstrued. If the regulations laid down for the conduct of-medical examinations did not permit' of the reservist's name being asked, Lieutenant-Colonel Fitzgerald ivas incorrect in doing it in this case. Of the foregoing cases, the only two which were brought in,support of Captain Thackcr's telegram of November 15, 1917, to tho Defence Minister were those of Woods and Burrows, which, in the opinion of the Court, did not justify the statement contained in such telegram. Tho two other eases deduced by Captain Thacker in support of his chief charges against the medical examiners were those of M'Anulty and Cooper, which woro subsequent to the date of the telegram, and wero all trivial in nature.

In conclusion, tho Court considers that many reservists appear before tho medical examiners'armed with certificates which tlioy have been persuaded will exempt them from, further examination and liability for. military service. When they discover that, such is not tho case, they are inclined to feel that they have a grievance against the medical examiners. This has apparently bcon fomented in certain cases by the interference of Captain Thacker, whoso conduct as an officer )nay be regarded as subversive of military discipline, as in tho caso of Bugler Burrows, whero ho himself failed to report the maSl"er to District Headquarters, but instead sent a telegram to General Henderson.

Considering tho antagonistic attitude of mind that tho medical examiners have often to deal with, and considering the largo number of men they liavo under examination without any complaint being alleged, the Court considers that on the whole they have acted with judgment and forbearance.