CURRENT TOPICS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1264, 21 May 1896, Page 30

CURRENT TOPICS.

MEDICAL DISHONOUR. When tho cable message reached here announcing that a lady had got a verdict with .£12,000 damages against a well-known London doctor for libel,tho nows created a sensation. The case, of which the reports have come to hand since, is very simple. A Mrs Kitson, who was living in London apart from her husband, who was in Australia, had occasion to consult Dl- Playfair. Tho doctor diagnosed tho case, and made an imputation against the lady’s honour, which .she denied. Ho called upon her to clear her character, threatening in case of failure to inform his wife. A correspondence ensued. In the end the doctor did inform his wife, who conveyed the information to her brother Sir James Kitson, the brother of the patient’s husband, whereupon Sir James stopped the allowance he was making her. Airs Kitson at onco brought an action against Dr Playfair and his wife for libel and slander. The doctor adhered to his opinion, medical evidence was adduced to show that lie had made an error, ALr Kitson stood by his wife, and the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff with .£12,00) damages. They found also that the words complained of wore not uttered without malice, and that they were not uttered from a sense of duty, but from an indirect motive.

We do not wonder that tho verdict was received with loud applause by thoso in Court; nor can we feel surprised Unit the Judge (Air Justice Hawkins) is not reported to have made any attempt to check that demonstration. Anything more monstrous than ihe conduct of tho doctor it would he impossible to conceive. Whether his conclusion about tho lady’s condition was right or whether it was wrong is not in any way material. Tho main point is that lie had acquired certain information in his confidential relation of medical man. By every rule of honour lie was bound to respect the secret of his patient. She had consulted him in confidence, called him in to treat the case which had baffled another medical man who had beon attending her. Ho should have regarded her secret as sacred, and protected it at all hazards. There is an exception to this rule of confidence in the caso of medical men. In this country no medical man can ho compelled to givo information to a Court of Justice, except in certain criminal cases. Regarding tho law in England, Air Justice Hawkins made some interesting and forcible remarks. Wo quote from tho report of his summing up:

Tho medical men called said that there were t.vo exceptions to the rule imposing on them secrecy as to confidences gained during professional attendance). Tho first was as to giving evidence in a Court of law. ilis Lordship did not altogether agree with what they said as to that. It all dopondod upon tho Judge. 'J'ho Judgo himself might in some cases refuse to commit a medical man tor contempt in refusing to reveal confidences. Each case would ho governed by tho particular circumstancon, and the ruling of the Judge, deciding no doubt according to the law, would bo the test. Secondly, they said that if there wero circumstances Horn which they supposed a crime was intended to bn committed they would have to inform the Public Prosecutor. If ihe doctor were called in merely to attend a woman needing physical ail, His Lordship dmhtod very much whether lie would be justified in going to the police and saying, “I have at tended a poor woman who has been trying to procure an abortion.” That would be a monstrous cruelly.

From this it is evident that, whatever tho exception to the rule of confidence may ho, it does not cover the breach of confidence committed by Dr Playfair. The medical men who gave evidence about it were clearly unable to apply it to his case. Dr Playfair was not before a Court of Justice when he divulged his secret, nor was there any question of crime. Ho should have guarded his .secret as closely as a, minister of religion guards secrets which are confided to him in tho exercise of his sacred calling. The doctor and the clergy in mitre in this respect oil the same footing of m >i'al obligation. Doctor Playfair, by his conduct, dishonoured his honourable profession, proved false to its highest tradition, and struck a blow at its usefulness. The substantial damages awarded and the finding of the jury have probably opened his eyes to his own baseness. They have done more; they have shown that if medical men are false to their duty the lawwill lake very serious notice of their delinquency. For the honour of tho profession which this man lias wronged, it must bo said that the case is unique in medical annals.

[A full report of this remarkable caso will be found on page 10. 1

THE END OF THE RAND EPISODE. There is not very much more for any ono to do in this matter than to praise tho Doers for their moderation and good sense, ami hope that tlm good behaviour of tho Johannesburg Uil landers may, before long, induce Lh * Dutchmen to further increase their clem me/, ft is undeniable that the chief off mdei-s may consider themselves fortunate that they are alive, and that the others have reason to congratulate themselves that the greater part of their lives is not to he passed in picking oakum. Many a filibusterer who did no worse to a Spanish American Republic

has been shot without a moment’s delay. Aloreover, since their conviction the Cuban case has arisen, in which men not nearly so culpable have been rescued with enormous difficulty from the gallows, and, indeed, it is doubtful for the moment wliothor the rescue will, after all, be permanent. It is beyond question that if we look at the custom of other nations and consider the nature of the offence—tho deadliest that can be committed against a State—wo must, so far from complaining of tho treatment of our fellow-subjects, congratulate them on having fallen into such good hands, had a hostile expedition landed on our shores, marched through the country, engaged the Volunteers in battle, and killed a number ; and had their surrender boon followed by the discovery of a plot on the part of a body of foreign residents for the seizure of tho government and tho capture for a foreign flag of the country—we have hardly breath enough to ask what should we have done? Let every man ask himself what public opinion would have cried for from the North Capo to the Bluff; and having so asked, let every man dismiss the subject of the Rand trials in a spirit of justice free from bitterness of soul.

THE AMATEUR DEFINITION. From tho cable message which we publish elsewhere we can see daylight for the amateur definition. Tho New South Wales men are perfectly ready to givo up the manual labour clause, and nothing will induce them to admit fishermen or ex- fishermen to the intercolonial championship contests. Practically, all Australia is of the same opinion. There is no reason why New Zealand should not also he of tho pleasantagreement. After all, tho great thing is to get over the ban against manual labour. Tho maintenance of the ban means simply the downfall of rowing in New Zealand. Without going so far as to agree with the extremists, who hold that tho Seymours are manual labour men, we unhesitatingly accept tho statement that, if manual labour is to be set up and kept up as a bar to the amateur status, ninety per cent, of tho oarsmen of New Zealand would bo unable to meet their confreres in amateurcontests. Nothing, therefore, in the whole subject is of tho same importance as tho manual labour question. Tho opposition has on that question given way. Wo can, in return, easily givo way on the point affecting only ono crow in Now Zealand, viz., the exclusion of fishermen or those engaged professionally in and about boats. The great thing for us to secure is tho entry into the wide field of intercolonial competition, whero the strength and skill of our best and bravest are measured by a higher standard than any which can be found in our islands. Wo must federate athletically with Australia. When that federation is consolidated, wo must arrange a federation on Imperial linos of athletics. LOULS CHE MIS. The confession of Hereford, alias Trudgeon, revives tho question of tho guilt or innocence of this much discussed convict. That confession his friends have promptly seized upon as tho ono thing wanting in tho caso they have been keeping before the Legislature and tho law courts with praiseworthy humanity for nearly seven years. That one thing was a colourable theory of tho crime. Without such a theory the defonco could only hope to prove a negative. They would have been glad of any chance of a suggestion that someone had committed the crime, because it might liavo given them a plausible theory of a positive character to support their negative arguments. But with tho solitary exception of tho evidence of tho man who hoard a rustle in tho bushes, backed up by a rather wild theory in a weekly newspaper of a maniac coining from no whence to do tho murder and disappearing into nowhere when the deed was done, there was nothing whatever to go upon. Some hints there were about relatives of the murdered man, but on examination their basis vanished into smoke. Tho importance of ILi'-oford’s confession may therefore be easily gauged. The weak points in the confession are ' glaring. To begin with, cold steel played at least as material a part in tlm killing as powder and shot, but of the col l steel the man who says he did tho killing makes i no mention. In the second place, he, a labourer who would be likely to remember Saturday above all otnor days in tho week, fixes a Saturday as tho night, when in reality it was a Fridiv night. Thirdly, a boy of 15, admittedly an idle vagabond who could not keep a place at six .-hillings a week, would Hot In*, likely to get one in which he could s ive up the price of a gnu and ammunition. Aloreover, if an idle vagabond did posse.-; sufficient selfmastery and self-denial to keep himself steady while accumulating (he necessary i savings, ho would hardly be likely to I make any confession of his guilt subsequently. Fourthly, tlm wounds inflicted on Hawkings were apparent ly the work of a powerful man, not of a boy of fifteen. Fifthly, no one of tho name of cither j Hereford or Trudgeon has as yet been found either in tho records of the Haw- i kings family or of the memories of tho I people in the neighbourhood. i For the genuineness of tho confession i it will be held (lsb) that Airs Chemis re-, members a boy who threatened revenge i against Hawkings for ill-treatmont ; (2nd) | that vagabonds, boys as well as men, have many aliases ■ (3rd) that the man who escaped from the Grey town lock-up must liavo had exceptional pertinacity and resources, and that this man is familiar with that episode ; (4th) that until the terms of tho confession arrive it is impossible to say wliothor there is in it no mention of tho knife ; (sth) that if ho did not mention tiie knife cross-examination may prove that iie was uot professing to givo all the details of the murder, which would be minor in importance to tho main fact of the murdor itself; (6th) that small

errors as to days are uot material; that, in fact, a man who moans to say Saturday morning ofteu manages to say Saturday night without knowing; in this connection there are, in short, vast networks of possibilities more or less suggestive and wonderful. What more may be brought out as time goes on, it is impossible to say. It may bo that further very important evidence is either to be given shortly or to bo found by following clues given in this Sydney confession. For tho present the probabilities are somewhat against the genuineness of Ilareford’s story, But the great fact of Harcford’s confession remains. In the interests of justice that fact will liavo to bo probed and tested in every possible way. It is true that men do sometimes confess to murders they have not committed; even to murders which have not taken place outside of their imaginations. But in dealing with confessions of this sort, there can be no general rule. Each case must he considered on its own merits. Therefore the public must await developments in this case, with patience and in a spirit of evenhanded justice.

THE SOUDAN EXPEDITION. Light of tho strongest on the intentions of the Government in .ordering the forward movement was thrown in the House of Commons in the last week of Alarch. Air Aforley signalised his return to tho House, via tho Alontrose Burghs, by vigorously attacking tho expedition. Tho Government, for whom Air Balfour and Air Chamberlain handled the subject with groat delicacy and reticence, endeavoured to draw tho line at Dongola, clearly meaning tho House and country to believe that, except in certain very remote contingencies, the advance would stop at Dongola. But through all tho speeches ran a thread of Khartoum and a thread of the Italian Alliance, which between thorn clearly belied the trend of tho diplomatic and deprecatory portion of tho Alinisterial language. Thoso references to a possible forward movement wero forced by tho arguments of tho Opposition Leader, which, as Air Labouchero put it, “ had smashed and pulverised tho reasons given by tho Government for tho advance on Dongola,” During Air Alorley’s speech there was a very significant interpolation by Air Balfour. Tho Soudanese, Air Alorley was saying, would resist to tho death tho restoration of anything like Egyptian rule, when Air Balfour interposed with the intimation “ that he had never contompluted the re-introduction into the Soudan of tho kind of Egyptian rule which once prevailed there.” This is as clear an admission of the intention of going on to Khartoum as could bo made. It is more, it is a virtual declaration of tho permanency of tho British occupation of Egypt. The reason is that Egyptians who, with all the benofits of the British regime in Cairo before their eyes, still intrigue against the regime, and resist it in every possible way, may safely lie declared incapable of ever ruling tho Soudan except as tho Pashas ruled it. Tho declaration will no doubt bo soizccl upon in duo course, and made tho subject of comment. Its present suggestivonoss is in tho implication that Khartoum is to bo attacked. For how can any rule bo established in tho Soudan that does not pull the Khalifa down on his capital ? Tho interesting question for tho public therefore is whether tho advancing expedition is strong enough. Lord Charles Beresford lias declared that tho forco must have more British troops to harden it, and tho Government has told a questioner in tho llouso of Commons that a British expedition is not to be sent to the Soudan in tho autumn. No ono doubts tho necessity for hardening tho Egyptian troops, oven though they are better incomparably than the troops which died with Hicks, in Darfur, or the soldiery which left Valentino Baker with his staff and a Soudanese company or so to bear the ln-unt of the Arab onset at Tokar. There is a largo proportion of British troops with them now; two British regiments have arrived at Souakim oil the Rod Sea, and tho Italians in Kassala have been notified to hold that place at all hazards, and a contingent of the Indian army, under Colonel Egerton, is under orders to embark. In tho south tho troops under Ala-jor Dhanis, of the Belgian army, whose base is the riel) and populous Uganda and Unyoto eountri'.s, is well equipped with ALtxims and Krupps, and very strong in numbers. Clearly, between Indian, ILa lian and Congolese troops there is plenty of force for tiie coming campaign.

TIIE RUSSELL LUND ACT. It would bo interesting to know what the ethics of the Opposition speakers would make of the Russell land episodo of clem on Go years ago, if they could be applied by the party champions now let loose over the country with instructions to do everything but get votes of confidence. The application would certainly produce some pleasant effects of language. Sir Robert’s famous —and bogus—“ most corrupt in tho world,” would have to give place to tho solidified candour devoted to tho Russell iniquity.

A Vo will take the Opposition on their own familiar groun 1. They declare that it is atrocious for a Alinister to accopt a position in tho office of a private company, because some day that company may have to ask the Government for something. Thoy aver that tho admission of a constituent to any position in the Public Service is tho unpardonable sin. Thoy state boldly that

for a Alinister or a legislator to bo concerned iu any transaction involving surrender of tho public lands is a crime that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

Now, let us examine this Russell transaction by the dry light of thoso famous canons. Colonel Russell, tho father, was a legislator. He wanted sundry acres of the public lands for his son tho Captain, 110 drew up a measure to give him that share of the public property, he introduced that measure into tho Legislative Council, and fought it through all its stages in tho most determined manner against the opposition of men of proved integrity and character. He lobbied day and night, by the week and by tiie month, he rushed at every shadow of every legislator’s most distant relative, he “ whipped,” ho bullied, ho craved, ho besought, lie reprosonted in every conceivable quarter. Eventually ho carried his point, and his son got 800 acres of the public lauds. The first Opposition rule says it is atrocious for a Alinister to accept a private position for fear lest his associates may have to ask tho Government for something. In other words, it is atrocious for a representative man who is interested to ask tho Legislature for anything. Therefore it was beyond description atrocious for Colonel Russell to have brought down the Russell Bill and got it passed through tho Legislature. By tho second rule, which says that Ministers or legislators who do anything for a constituent are guilty of the unpardonable sin, the offeneo of Colonel Russell, with tho co-operation of his immaculate son of course, is unpardonable. By the third Opposition canon a legislator concerned with getting hold of public lands commits a crime that calls to Heaven for vengeanco. Therefore, the Russell Laud Act was a crime calling to Heaven for vengeance. According to tho ethics of the Opposition, there never was a more corrupt, hideous, nefarious transaction in our Legislature than tho transaction by which tho leader of tho Opposition obtained SOU acres of tho public lands. We liavo not entered into tho question of whether Captain Russell was entitled to that land. We have contented ourselves with proving, by the much-trumpeted principles of the Opposition, that tho passing of tho Russell Land Act was a most improper proceeding. Wo will add that no man with a spark of gentlemanly instinct in him would have brought, in a Bill for the benefit of his son ; no man with the least, shred of delicacy in his composition would have fought such a measure through ; no”truo gentleman would have remained in his place in tho Legislature while tho Bill was being discussed. As to whether tho Captain duly performed, or did not perform the conditions, tho report of tho debate in Hansard shows that such men as General Whitmore, “ Lord ” Henry Russell, Dr Pollon and the lion J. Johnston had no doubt that the Captain certainly did not perform tho conditions, and had no right to the land.

THE DEAIAND FOR LAND. “There is no demand for land. Wo should bo delighted to sell thousands of acres ; all wo have in fact. But there are no buyers. Tho land market is gluttod.” That was tho lino that used to he taken whenever the Land for Settlement Act was in question. Experience, common-sense, right reason, candid thought, all came down on the Government, proposal to resume estates compulsorily, and denounced the Alinister for Lands as a tyrannical despot bent on confiscating the broad acres of his opponents in order to give them to Ids friends. Tho final and clinching argument on these occasions was always “no demand for land.”

Tho Ardgowan sale is a wonderful commentary on that ancient plea. This estate, near to the town of Oamaru, was taken under the compulsory clauses of the Land for Settlements Act. Tho Alinister* saw that the land was needed for settlement, and be determined to acquire it, and tho Purchase Board acquired it accordingly, in duo course sixty-four sections were offered to the public, and the offer produced a rush of SCO!) names of applicants for a place on which to build a homo and acquire an independent competency. That is a proof of the reality of the earth hunger which was the chief reason for the passing of the Land for Settlement Act.

This cailh hunger is at present tho most consuming of all the diseases of our political life, Its symptoms are scarcity of employment, lack of openings for the young, disparity of soxes in the places whore monopoly holds largo tracts of land. Its main effect is that’this very fine country, which t-.iii support millions of people, is obliged In complain that b-ss than three-quarters i.f.i midion makes an overflow <>l population. Monopoly fights against woikmon’s villages ami workmen's trains. But enlightenment sees that workmen mud; supplement their incomes from tho land direct, and realises that they have a right to the pure air of heaven and the open spaces of nature, instead of tho darkness and evil-smelling bad health of city slums, which pamper ground landlords by damning great masses of human beings. The disease of New Zealand can only bn cured by having an Ardgowan, or two or throe, near every town. The disease will be cured if tho men who devised the Land for Settlements Act and carried it with its compulsory clauses in the teeth of violent opposition remain in power. If the handling of the remedy is given to their opponents, tho men who pronounced it poison, tho diseaso will never bo cured.