The Evening Star THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1906.

Evening Star, Issue 12768, 22 March 1906, Page 4

The Evening Star THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1906.

Mr. Solomon and those members of the Hospital Board who supThn ported him yesterday deHospital Board, serve th c thanks of the commcirity for insisting upon duo regard being paid to the rights of the Medical Staff. The attitude taken up by the Chairman and one or two of the senior members cannot be too strongly condemned, and we are more than ever convinced that i it will be a happy day when a radical j cban £ e takes place in the constitution of the : Board - This disposition to slight the Medij cal Staff is no new thing—wo havo animad- | verted upon it again and again in times j P agt ~but it might have been supposed that a mere sense of decency would have prevented it being displayed in connection with . the construction of the new Medical Ward, j To the doctors unquestionably belongs the ; chief part of the credit of making the project a success. Their representations were j mainly instrumental in inducing the public to subscribe in such a liberal fashion, and it is not too mnch to say that the undertaking wonld still be a dream and nothing more if the Trustees had been the only people concerned. Moreover, it is of the utmost importance that the ward, which is j to cost a very large sum of money, should be built in accordance with the latest scientific principles, and we are sure that the vast majority of the subscribers would scout the notion of settling the plans without thorough consultation with the Medical Staff. We go further, and say that if, after such consultation, there is any difference of opinion between the Board and the doctors, the odds are ten to one that the latter are in the right. In view of these considerations, the line taken by some of the Trustees yesterday is astounding. When Dr Pulley and Mr Solomon drew attention to the fact that proper opportunities had not been given to the staff to see if the plans were satisfactory, Mr Wills had the temerity to declare that “it was a question “ whether the Trustees were to rule the “staff or the staff were to rule the Trustees.” Mr Solomon’s reply was conclusive : I have said nothing whatever about the staff ruling the Trustees or the Trustees ruling the staff, but I maintain the Trustees should see everything is done to make this hospital successful, and we should listen to anything the staff have to say. Air Wills’s remark, despite its absurd irrelevance, is noteworthy as showing that the old disposition to nnderrate the authority of the Medical Staff is still present with some of the older members 'of the Board. t The discussion (which, by the way, was somewhat disorderly) seemed likely to have , no practical result, but fortunately it was j revived by the necessity of giving consideraj tion to a letter which had been received I from the hon. secretary of the Medical : Staff. Dr Fitchett had been instructed to point out that the finished plans of the new ward had not been submitted to the Building Committee of the staff, and to request that a meeting of the full Building Committee should be convened. This letter must be regarded as a refutation of the statement (endorsed by the Chairman and Air Robin) that the staff had really been : consulted. Air Tapper very properly moved j that the tenders should not be opened until | the request of the staff had been complied j with, and we are glad to say that this pro- ■ posal was carried—in a slightly modified i form—though not before the Chairman had offered tbs following characteristic remark: Did they recognise the staff as members of the Building Committee ? He had a strong objection to the staff being part of the Building Committee, but he had no objection to the staff getting all the particulars they wished. Whatever the actual state of matters may be, we do not hesitate to say that the staff , ought to be represented on the Building J Committee. The fact is that experienced doctors know twice as much about these matters as the Trustees, and it is high time that there was an end to the bad old spirit of jealous antagonism displayed in the remarks of the Chairman and Mr Wills. Happily there is a likelihood of legislative reform being effected before long. Aleanwhile the public (and especially the subscribers to the new ward) should maintain an attitude of vigilance. gy" 1111 MJUMi UIfJUPi I’he judgment given a few days ago by the High Court of Australia An Important m a postal case is of more Decision. than passing interest. Application was made to thq Court for a mandamus directing the Acting Deputy Postmaster-General to transmit through the post and deliver all postal matter addressed to a certain Sydney firm The firm in question were the Freeman and Wallace Electro-medical and Surgical Institute, and the mandamus was'applied for in consequence of an order having been isued by the Postmaster-General directing that no mail matter addressed to the firm in question was to be transmitted or delivered, because they were carrying on a fraudulent and immoral business. The firm filed affidavits denying the statements i as to the nature of their business. The | High Court refused to grant a writ of mandamus on the ground that the Post-master-General, in making the order, was exercising hia administrative functions as a i member of the Executive, and was in no • way a judicial officer, nor under any leual I obligation to the applicants to deliver their j letters. It may be of interest to note the i provision made by our own. Legislature in regard to such matters, for there can be little doubt that there is also room for the exercise of similar powers in New Zealand. Section 29 of the Post Office Act, 1900, reads as follows: (1) Whenever the Postmaster-General og alas' .postmaster has reason tot suspect

that any postal packet (other than a letter) addressed to any person (either by "bis own or any fictitious name or assumed, name), or to any address without a name, posted in New Zealand, or elsewhere, contains, od is supposed to contain, any printed or written matter of any kind, or any enclosure of any kind, which is of a blasphemous, indecent, or immoral nature, or likely,to hare an indecent or immoral effect, be may cause such postal packet to be detained, and opened, and if it is found to contain any such matter or enclosure, he shall cause the postal packet, and the contents thereof, to be destroyed. (2) If any Postmaster has «ey doubt as to whether the provisions of this section should be enforced in any particular case, .he shall refer the matter to the Postmaster-General, whose decision shall be final. It is also specially provided in the Act that every postal packet opened and examined under the provisions of the Act shall be opened at hj post office, either by two postal officers specially nominated by the Post-master-General or by one postal officer so nominated in. the presence of any officer, either of the Postal Department or of the Customs. Prom the above it will be seen that the Postmaster-General in this country is apparently in the same position as the Postmaster-General on the other side. The powers vested in him are very great; in fact, we should be inclined to say too great, for there is absolutely no appeal from his decision, and there seems to be no redress for anyone who considers himself injured by the action of the PostmasterGeneral except by petition to Parliament. Whether as a matter of principle it is wise to allow such wide powers of detaining letters without any appeal is open to question; but there can be no difference of opinion as to the strong necessity existing for some efficient safeguard against the floods of fraudulent and immoral literature that stream through the post. It is difficult to leam to what extent this evil exists, 'but that it exists is certain. It is well to know, under the circumstances, that the Postal Department can take effective action whenever it feels justified in doing so.