THE SUNNYSIDE ASYLUM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXII, Issue 13550, 23 September 1904, Page 4

THE SUNNYSIDE ASYLUM.

Mr Beetham's report upon the cases of the three .attendants which- were submitted for his investigation will certainly not lessen the widespread dissatisfaction that is felt with regard to the administration of Sunnyside. Asylum. It makes it more apparent than ever that there is a sense of unrest and insecurity among the employee's that must be extremely detrimental to the patients and the institution. "We warned the Minister at the time that he was only touching the fringe of the trouble by limiting the inquiry to these three cases, and the result has more than justified our words. The report will simply produce a storm of protest against men 'being tried and condemned with closed doora t and the settlement of the trouble will be ae far off as ever. Already we .have the most disquieting rumours of the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. We are told that the medical superintendent prescribed the form of procedure, that his witnesses were allowed much more latitude than were the witnesses on the other side, that the attendants were given no reasonable facilities for preparing their defence, and that from beginning 1 to end they were treated as convicted offenders. How far these rumours are true we are unable to say, but we know that the attendants were placed at a very serious disadvantage. They were not given proper notice of the purpose and scope of the inquiry, they were not allowed any assistance in conducting their case, and they were not permitted to confer with the witnesses they wished to call. Their defence would have required to be very strong indeed to give them any chance of acquittal. It is not, perhaps, quite fair to criticise Mr Beetham's conclusions without seeing the evidence on which they are founded, but we are bound to say that in their present form they seem to us vecy far from convincing. In the case of the attendant Thornton, for instance, Mr Beetham, beyond saying that the evidence is "purely circumstantial," does not explain why he accepts the word of the head attendant against tho positive contradiction of the defendant. Possibly he was not told that tho patient who was supposed to have been assaulted had identified another attendant as- his assailant. Thornton has been in the service for five years, and enjoys quite an unusual measure of popularity among the patients and his fellow-attendants. The attendant Kennedy appears to have been guilty of nothing worse than " agitating," and a-s twenty-two out of the tiventysix male attendants were also " agitating," it is a little difficult to see why he was Delected for exceptional treatment. The medical superintendent added the oharge of being "untruthful, and consequently untrustworthy," because: Kennedy gave an evasive answer when he was accused ot laying the grievances- of the' attendants before certain members of Parliament; but as the unfortunate man knew that an open confession would have meant his instant dismissal he might surely have been pardoned for a little want of candour. It is, however, rather useless attempting. t<ranalyse these cases without having the .evidence before us-. The only point that is quite clear at present is that nothing short of an exhaustive public inquiry, with a wide order of reference, will restore confidence in an institution which,, above all others, should be absolutely beyond, b-uspicion. Mr Beetham's report will only intensify the feeling of distrust.