THE PROPOSED TEVIOT HOSPITAL

Mt Benger Mail, 15 September 1920, Page 3

THE PROPOSED TEVIOT HOSPITAL

(To the Editor.) Sir, J. H. Waigth's letter of August 28th, referring to "Xo Twaddler's" letter is receiving my attention. "No Twaddler's" letter must have stirred up his bile, of whic\ lie seems to be overburdened. I fear a padded coll will also have to be one of the provisions made for'in respect to' the local hospital. The facetious remarks penned by that vaunting young gentleman, who tries to belittle "Xo Twaddler" not his statements. "Xo Twaddler" is not one of those who wishes lo emblazon his name ; in his modesty he loses sight of himself and wishes only to deal with the business that agitates the public mind. My statement that it is two years since the Committee was first set up is as near the mark as that of the secretary who avers that it is only 10 months. That is only a quibble and T am sorry I haven't the exact date before me. In My former letter is true and corroVt; also in that the reports given lo tlitPress is a cornet statement of the committ's findings, and always guarded, not to say too much. That is journalistic etiquette. The only statement that may have exception taken to it was the bottom line, which was inspired, viz., "That a local hospital is assured." This to my mind was-perfectly in order, seeing that the Hospital Board had offered to go on with the district hospital if this district provided £7OO or £BOO. Surely an offer like this could not be turn d down by a sane public. As stated in the reported meeting of May 14th, the secretary was instructed to ask "the Board's secretary for a more definite explanation of a >iiia'! clause, which really did not effect ir.o ; ssue. The Board wished to have an early reply. The local secretary stated in committee (which is not a l-'r emasonry Society)

that tin' whole matter would have to bo placed before a public meeting for their acceptance or refusal before an answer could b>- given definitely to the Board. One of the committee contended that the Borough Onmcil should be approached, and its position defined regarding the -itc .-elected, so that ill" public meeting could have placed before it facts not

• 4 it"<." Those are the remarks of .1.H.W.. which methinks 1 have heard before. Mav 11 —narlv four month*

ago since a committee meeting was called! Xo wonder the public, who wisli to have such an institution, are restive ! J.11.W. also tries to show that the public me ting held on January 1?, 1920. is the meeting "Xo Twaddler'' referred to in his letter. Poor fellow; he is wandering. Xow, could it be possible to hold a public meeting that was discussed in committee on the 14th of May. 1920, with the intention of holding the same after that date, on 18th January. 1920. Swelled head. A per son iii such a state of physical and nit ntal derangement is dangerous, and it is no wonder his statements and stigii'itisnis are wild and ungentkunnnlv. Regarding correspondents who lack courage to sign their own name to "orrespomlence on public affairs. I will enlighten him. Public matters are such as influence the masses not the writer. The greatest of writers, both on publi> matters and of books, use fictitious names. The Pickwick Papers, for instance. which were written in by-gone days to influ. nee public opinion, were published under a noni de plume. Volumes have been written in controversy regarding their authors. Disraeli i Lord Beaconslielil). one of Britain's greatest statesmen, invariably wrote under various signatures on public matters. and thrashed with vehemence his side of the house, and the opposition in turn, for the achievement of his country's good, and his own ideal. 1 hope the hospital cause will not die of senile decay. Perhaps the secretary is a Quaker, and only acts when the spirit moves him.—l am. etc., "xo twa 1 idler."' 1 j |