MR. CLEMENS IN REPLY

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 140, 10 December 1918, Page 2

MR. CLEMENS IN REPLY

Mr. Clemens has sent to members of Parliament the following reply: —

"What was practically the original copy of the printed letter which is now in yonr possession was in the hands of the Defence Minister on 7th November, and on the same day the Minister informed me he had made urgent requests for reports regarding the statement made by me. At 11.30 p.m. on Wednesday last I visited the House and- sent a memo, to Sir James Allen's private secretary, asking him to see me. I also submitted a copy of the printed letter now in your possession, and on it was the following memo:—"This letter-,de-tails the facts as per mine of 6th November I do not desire to do any injustice to any person, and if you have found that.any statement is incorrect or enlarged I shall be obliged if you will advise me before this letter is published. The messenger at the House informedme the secretary was not there and that Sir Jaffie3 Allen was not available, He returned the letter to me. On Thurs-' day I had a telephonic convention with Sir James Allen's private secretary, and ho then informed me that while he was not prepared to vouch for the correctness of everything which was in my letter -he knew of nothing which would cause him to think there was anything incorrect or enlarged.

"I now <lear with the statement made by the Defence Minister.

"(1) The parents of Private Clemens did not desire the removal of their son from the Annexe to the Main Hospital. So bad was his treatment there my wife

asked she might be allowed to. nurse him at home. You will not find "in my letter a statement that Dr Maguire 'expressed his strongest disapproval of the treatment of Private Clemens.' Sir James Allen denies a ; statement which has never been made by me. Facts speak louder than words, and if a Parliamentary Committee is set up I undertake to prove there was neglect in the Auckland Annexe. "(2)* My letter liade no charge against the orderly who 1 w«* sent with my son. The Defence Minister states he wae a sergeant. „ He, himself informed me he was a private. He certainly did not wear any stripes indicating that be was a non-commissioned officer; "(3) The messenger sent by me to Sur-geon-General Henderson denies that any request was made for a railway pass to Wellington. As a matter of fact my letter was opeiied'and read by the officeto whom it was delivered ;and was takei ' by him to another room., , So far aa the messenger knew my letter waai submitted to Surgeon-General Henderson himself, and the refusal was from the General. "(4) The Defence Minister statsd that the Department would have raised no objection if I had intercepted my son and broken his journey at Wellington, and had kept him here. This statement requires no comment, 38 "it will be ob--1 vious to everyone that I had no control over the movements of my son. "Paragraph (5) requires no comment. I rely upon the opinion expressed by Major Maguire when he stated he was sending my son to Hanmer to complete his cure. : "(6) I stated in my Utter I would not vouch for the information which had been given to me that the orderly was nursing . influenza patients ,up to within two hours of taking charge of my; son. I:still believe it to be a fact. ) It was made to me by the orderly", himself. It was repeated by the orderly to%, i: mem^ ber of the Expeditionary Force. It wag again- repeated by the orderly to thr«e civilians Ido not doubt /the orderly's statement, and can prove-- before any Commission that such 'statement was made by him. "(7) The Defence Minister states it is clear that >if my son had not contracted influenza he. would have, been alive today. Let me cjuote from the opinion^ expressed by one. of New Zealand's leading medical men: 'The method adopted in transferring your boy made his re- | covery practically impossible.' ' 1 believe that statement, ; ;"(8) The; Defence Minister «*»>«• returned soldiers are all treated i*like, whether officers or not. I ask you do you belive that? For. if you do I am prepared to.prove; the contrary. \ "There seems only tine construction to place on the Defence Minister's statement. My son was removed from Auckland,at his own request. My son continued the journey from Wellington at his own request. • My son continued the journey from Christchnrch at his own request. My son has died. He is unable to say these' 4statements are contrary to facti. I do state positively he told me it was wrong to send him.on from Wellington Until he had time to recover from his fatigue. The Defence Minister has delayed his statement until it ia too lafefor me to effectively Teply to it, I submit 1 am entitled to have this letter placed on record in Hansard and given equal publicity to that which hag been given to the statement made by the Minister.'^