SEACLIFF INQUIRY.

Evening Star, Issue 8614, 7 September 1891, Page 4

SEACLIFF INQUIRY.

TO THB EDITOB.

Sib,—Mr Simpson's report re the dismissal of the late James Stewart from jjeacliff Asylum should lead to some change in the system. It is evident that medical knowledge and managing ability are not necessarily allied. In this case a practical experience of six years is set aside by a novice; a dismissal results, and, two years afterwards, an inquiry. Mr Simpson's report shows J. Stewart as clerk and storekeeper for s'x years, the authorities admitting bis conspicuous truth and honesty; that he was chosen by the inspector, of two in office, to do the work of both under new rules. The inspector eays he feared that he had too much to do, and asked him ; but he said he could do it—of course under the rules. So it is Bhowr he was zealous and willing. A new doctor is appointed; he allows the rules to be broken relating to the issuing of store;, thus adding to the duties of an overworked man. Trouble arises; the doctor reports adversely; and, without inquiry, Stewart is dismissed. Surely some serious offence was committed to cause the dismissal of a truthful, honest, and willing officer of six years' standing. You have published the evidence and the report. Dr Macgregor began by intimating the disclosures he must make in self-defence if the inquiry proceeded publicly. Mr Simpson terms this " almost superstitious." Captain Stewart oalled it intimidation, and defied it. What was disclosed ? Dr Radford King's reports. After perusual, Mr Simpeon said that there was nothing in them against Stewart. Some verbal complaint 3 were mentioned, but, as the inspector admitted, they were not against Stewart personally, merely that he had too much to do. The report says all went well until September, and then the first offence occurred. Mr Stewart, clerk, next in rank to the doctor, actually sent a telegram to the impounding officer that some cattle that were in the habit of trespassing on the asylum grounds were in again. He is censuredfor doing this without ooDßulting the doctor, and in evidence the doctor cannot recall, but does not deny, ordering Stewart to tako no instructions but from himself. This accounts for the second offence: not sending the telegram re the escape of a patient. The doctor was on the ground. Stewart was under orders. Why not send memo. ? The red tape Mr Simpson properly objects to was of the doctor's own weaving. Mr Simpson rightly contends that officers must eo-operatß for the welfare of tbe institution, and comes to the third offence; taking the meat from the cook. This was a wrong act, as it put things out of gear. But what of the doctor deciding to make the change on Monday, leaving for Dunedin Saturday, without telling the officer next in charge? Stewart, a truthful man, writes: "I heard a rumor. I had no instructions, lasked the head attendant. He said I have not been told by the doctor." See Stewart's defence. Who was responsible if things went wrong 1 Clearly the doctor by his neglect to inform his officers. The dootor then reports: '•While Mr Simpson approves of him reporting he disapproves of some things therein, and, in his opinion, suspension pending inquiry was the course that ought to have been pursued." This is just, and Bpsciully so under the circumstances. The method pursued reminds one of Jedburgh justice—hang first, try afterwards. The complaint dated September 23, dismissal 27th, defence received 30tb, illustrates this. I think a oheck against injustice would be useful by having a complaint book, in which any charge of mieoonduct reported to the inspector should be written, and this read to the alleged offender, so that he oan defend himself against injustice; or some snob method to prevent the recurrence of evil.— I am, etc., E, Cakb. Dunedin, September 5.