Nelson Evening Mail THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1926 HOSPITAL BOARD AND CRITICISM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 10 June 1926, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1926 HOSPITAL BOARD AND CRITICISM

JUDGING from the specially prepared statement and romarKs made at yesterday’s meeting, recent criticism' of certain actions of the Nelson Hospital Board appears to have completely upset the equilibrium of life chairman and one or two members of Mm Board. The string of vehement abuse hurled at this journal and its editor is very contemptible, especially coming as it docs from one occupying a prominent public position. There has been no adequate sense of responsibility whatever for misstatement follows misstatement throughout. Further, a very damaging accusation is made on totally false grounds. These tactics are disappointing to a degree, but we may assure Mr Geo. Bout that neither threats nor abuse will deter us from doing what we consider to be right in the public interest. We feel sure the public has seen that both sides have been placed' fully before the public. The chairman has had every possible facility for reply to any criticism we have made and we were pleased to see him make fairly free use of our columns. His accusations of unfairness, in Such circumstances cannot gull the public. The onlv further step we could have taken would be to have refrained from criticism altogether, which in the circumstances provailing, would have been a grave dereliction of public duty. In the first place the chairman refers again to the crockery business, and says ‘lt ;s now over a fortnight since the publication of Gibson and Patterson s letter, but up to the present the editor of The Mail has not seen fit to make the amende honourable." The reason why the matter was not referred to again was that the letter did not dispose of our contentions ami we felt no good purpose could be served, Seeing that a good deal of publicity bad been given to it already anil the transaction was long over. Since, however, thetdiairman has referred to it again, we must state that we had, and still have, the assurance that similar crockery to that purchased by the Hospital Board from a Wellington firm could have been procured through a Nelson firm The letter in question did not challenge the main argument, which is of course, that the Nelson firms should at least have had equal chances with the Wellington firm. The chairman says even if the crockery could have been supplied locally ,‘‘tlie ratepayers would have had to pay considerably more for it." This is an unwarrantable slur on local traders generally. We doubt the chairman’s contention absolutely, but not knowing the price paid bv the Board, cannot pursue the matter further. We therefore invite him to state the prices paid for the crockery by the Board.

In regard to the hospital grounds, everyone knows there was no necessity whatever to procure a Christchurch expert. Mr Cawthron stipulated for a Nelson architect. He had faith in the place and its people and doubtless lie felt an attempt might be made to go outside for such responsible work. A local architect has carried through the job and has earned the highest praise from the Minister and others. While it may not bo ultra sound argument to contend that because Nelson can produce the architect, it can produce the landscape gardener, there is, to put it very mildly, sufficient common-sense in the argument to at any rate warrant investigation.

Following on from this matter the chairman is guilty of a grave error of misquotation. Tn order to show the means by which he is seeking to discredit the editor we give his misrepresentation and the actual quotation side by side: —

The Mail’s State* i raent. 11th May. If everyone followed the example of the Hospital Board in this respect (going outside Nelson), there would be few loft | in Nelson able to! pay the hospital I rate. j

Mr Rout’s Statement. . . the editor of Tlte Mail said if the Board continues as it has done, the poor ratepayer will soon he unable to pay bis rates. This stnte- ! ment was repealed twice, but it is un)true."

It will bo seen the chairman s statement is completely false, and is an absolute misrepresentation of our remarks.

Will he denv that the statement we

made is true? The chairman then makes a vorv unfortunate further blunder, and with false accusation endeavours to arouse public feeling against the editor of The Mail. He writes:— Another grievance the Board lias was in the matter of broadcasting through the United Press Associa. lion, word for word (t believe all over New Zealand) the article which appeared in The Mail headed. "After the Ball" . . . could not local pride have forced lmn to keep the name of the Nelson Hospital out of the telegram and merely refer to the true position, i.e.. that the dance was a private one given by a Christ church contractor. Dirty linen is usually washed in one. s hack yard and not broadcasted about like this news was, and actions like these do considerable barm to; Nelson. Not. a word of the "Alter the Ball article or any article in regard to the new hospital save the opening ceremony was telegraphed by the editor of The Mail, who is the local representative of the Press Association. We feel we can leave this matter with the public to

judge. IT Mr Rout still has any doubts he can easily ascertain the position, and surely we can. look to him to "play the game.” In concluding, the chairman makes a still further false statement. "Not one word of praise has been given the Board by The Mail for erecting a very fine institution after it had ‘hung lire’ for several years, r> r for faithful service rendered.” Complimentary reference was made to the completion of the now hospital (Mail, 17th April). This journal is blamed for “scotching” the Board’s plans to raise funds to assist in meeting the cost of improving the grounds. It is, of course, the Board which has prejudiced its chances by not giving Nelson an opportunity of doing the work and by mentioning an ambitious scheme without a full statement, showing that the money asked for is actually needed. We stated at the time we would gladly co-operate with the Board in its public appeal for funds, and on 14th May said:—“Tt. is our opinion .at any rate, that the public will more easily overlook the Board’s blunder (in overlooking Nelson) and that the response to its appeal will be more liberal, after they realise a most important and fundamental principle has been uphold.” Tn a letter to The Mail on 11th Mnv last the chairman said: —

“I wish the public to clearly understand that it. is cash only which the Board requires to assist them in laying out the, grounds, asphalting the paths, and erecting a suitable fence. This work will probably cost, somewhere in the vicinity of £4OOO, and the Board feel certain that if the public are appealed to, a large amount of cash donations will he given to help the work above mentioned.” _ ' The Board should first place its full plans before the public and give its reasons for the contemplated expenditure on the grounds. The public are entitled to this information and it is the Board’s duty to give it. We are further blamed for a- remark made by a City Councillor. We cannot accept such wide responsibility. Tf lie had I*?cn fair, however, the chairman would have mentioned that a, correction was forwarded from the Council next issue and published. Tt is a ■ thousand pities the Board has made full 00-onerntion with it for the good of the public hospital which we all glory in. so difficult.