The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY). MONDAY, OCTOBER 2,1881.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 6695, 2 October 1882, Page 2

The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY). MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1881.

At the meeting of the City Council on Thursday night last, the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Management of the Hospital was brought up by the NJayor and adopted by a majority. Not a syllable was uttered about the strange anomaly of it having been given to the world a week before it was submitted to the Council. From this it can only be inferred that a copy of the report must have been issued to some one on the Mayor’s authority, otherwise he was seriously failing in duty in not drawing the attention of the Council to the commission, by some one, of a breach of trust. On this hypothesis, too, the Council manifested a strange lack of manliness in not taking his Worship to task for procedure highly disrespectful to the body over which he presides, and of whose honor he is supposed to be the irreproachable guardian. Such au incident as this, happening in official life, is always indicative of some defect of character, destructive of public confidence; and, in this instance, is not calculated to secure implicit faith in a report dealt with iu the manner described. The matter of the report is in perfect harmony with the way in which it was brought before the public. From beginning to end it is full of contradictions, special pleadings, betraying a strong animosity towards certain members of the Hospital Sub-Committee, and espousing the part of the Eesident Surgeon after a fashion that might well make him wish to he saved from his friends. The genesis of this inquiry arose out of the fact that the Hospital Dispenser waited on the Town Clerk to tender his resignation, and, on being asked his reasons, made use of language unmistakably implying an irascibility of temper in the Resident Surgeon which rendered co-operation with him unpleasant. This, he afterwards said, was stated in confidence ; but, nevertheless, admitted in evidence that it was correct. At the instance of the Eesident Surgeon, the Dispenser was allowed, by the Sub-Hospital Committee, to withdraw his resignation, but the circumstances, taken in connection with other rumors, and frequent resignations of nurses, suggested the propriety of an inquiry. The consideration, however, of this point was adjourned for a week, Dr. Qtllon being meanwhile made aware of the fact. The report says that at this, stage Dr. Gillon, declining , to rest under the serious implication contained in this resolution—though, as Mr Stafford said, it was only a resolution to adjourn—demanded an immediate and formal inquiry. It is here that the Mayor might easily have acted the part of a true friend to Dr. Qtllon. If he had been a wise man even, he would have declined to take action on Dr. Gillon’s letter until the matter under the consideration of the Sub-Committee had been disposed of. Hod he taken this course—as any man of business would have done—an opportunity would have been allowed for mutual explanations and suggestions between the Sub-Committee and Dr. Gillon, which, we doubt not, would have proved beneficial to the institution and all persons connected therewith; while a public inquiry, with attendant expenses, would have been avoided. That the matter was not allowed to rest, on the restoration of official harmony between the Eesident Surgeon and the Dispesser was" therefore not due, as the report avers, to some unnamed indiscreet person or persons “ fanning the embers of dissension,” nor to any statement made by Councillor Diyee to the Committee of the Council, at their request, but to the indiscretion of the Mayor himself in interrupting the action of the Sub Committee and bringing the affair formally before the Council. From a perusal of the evidence taken during the investigation, it is apparent that no charges were formulated against Dr. Gillon until they were formulated in the report itself. These are there stated thus —(1) “ That Dr. Gillon’s temper unfitted him to occupy the position of Eesident Surgeon; (2) That his constant absences from the Hospital amounted to a reprehensible neglect of duty.” Of the latter there was hot the slightest necessity for making any mention, for, so far as the evidence discloses, there does not appear to have been any complaint on that head beyond what seems to be implied in a somewhat vague statement of the Dispenser about his being left so much alone. The sole ground oi complaint is, therefore, the alleged irritability of Dr. Gillon’s temper. Now, we are far from saying that high temper is necessarily a fault, because it may be the unavoidable accompaniment of physical organisation, for which a man is not responsible, or of itself incapacitates a man for holding a public position. Of course the failing to restrain it would be bad form and un becoming an official status, but under proper government, instead of being a disqualification for office, it rather contributes to the better discharge of its functions. On the supposition, therefore, that Dr. Gillon has a temper such as most men have, more or less strong, the question is, did he regulate it so that it was promotive of the interests of the Hospital, or give rein to it, so that these were in any way sacrificed? The report declares that the evidence does not favor the allegation that it unfitted him for the position he occupied. But how, we are constrained to ask, does this agree with the following sentence previously recorded ? “ It must have been apparent to any person of ordinary perception and calm judgment that there had been a disturbance of the ordinary and proper relations which ought to exist between the Eesident Surgeon and the Dispenser!” What was the cause of that disturbance ? If the evidence of Mr Hodgson, the Dispenser, is of any value, it was

attributable to Dr. Gxllon’s temper: Owing to the prevaricating tendency of this witness not much weight is to he attached to his evidence, hut, as the report largely uses it in support, of the above assertion, we are compelled to accept it, such as it is. His testimony, then, is that Dr. Gillon was often hasty tempered; while Mrs Baxley says that he was hasty and quick tempered. Similar statements might be quoted from the evidence, but we purposely confine ourselves to the report. These admissions are, it is true, accompanied with apologetic phrases to the effect that there was a good deal to try his temper in connection with the carrying out of the Council’s instructions, and the report also refers to this fact as an extenuating circumstance; but none the less is there a virtual admission of the charge which yet is alleged not to hate been proved. Now, to report thus is, we submit, unfair to all persons concerned. It would have been more honest to have said, there is evidence of displays of temper which it would be in the interests of the institution to obviate by a removal or modification of their causes, whatever these might be. Such a verdict would have cast no painful reflection upon any one, and would have made the report consistent with itself. The efiect of the decision recorded in the report is merely to damn with faint acquittal. Notoriety is acquired by this report not less by the peculiar way in which it tries to inculpate some parties than by its questionable mode of exculpating others. The reference to Dr, Diver’s discharge of the patient Stage is not only impertinent to the point in connection’ with which it is introduced, but even seems intended to convey a false impression. The letter of Dr. Gillon to the Town Clerk, as well as the patient’s own evidence, conclusively shows, not only that Stage was not pressed to pay fees to the Honorary Physician, but also that his discharge was not due to his alleged inability to pay, but to the medical opinion that his health would be better promoted by residence in the country than by remaining in hospital. What bearing on the subject of inquiry the allusion to this case has does not appear, and it is difficult to resist the impression that it betrays a personal animus rather than a desire to elucidate the matter in hand. The same remark is applicable to that portion of the report which descants on the statements made by Dr. Newman. We fail to see how the expression of an opinion that the Hospital management was defective should be held to come from him “ with singular infelicity,” on the mere ground that he had attended four meetings of the Sub-Committee out of sixteen, especially when the Mayor himself was present at no more than six. It is surely possible for a man to have good reasons for non-attendance at such meetings, and at the same time have a conviction that the institution, whoso welfare they were meant to promote, was not in the condition which he desired. Nor is it at all clear that his non-attendance, from whatever cause arising, should preclude him from mentioning the rumors detrimental to the institution which were said to be afloat. In any case it was surely his duty to state what he had heard and say what he thought. And indeed, the report of the Committee itself unwittingly concedes that there was occasion for his, so doing; for, after affirming that the charges against the Hospital—its management that is—“ had no foundation in fact,” it goes on fto recommend certain changes necessary to improve that management and make it such as it ought to be. The Committee by proving too much disprove their own position. The uniform inconsistency of this report is further to be seen in its failure to recognise either of the two causes of the unsatisfactory state of things at the Hospital, presented in evidence against the one originally alleged—namely, the Resident Surgeon’s temper. In his letter to the Town Clerk—which the report only partially quotes —as also in his letter to Dr. Diver (re Mr Hodgson’s resignation), Dr. Gillon declares the low rate of wages to be the sole origin of the dissatisfaction among the subordinate officials; that an increase of their salaries all around is the only remedy; and states the additional sums he would in each case recommend. These officials, on the other hand, express themselves as quite contented with their wages, and only complain of having too much work, due, it was said, to an overreduction of the staff. To neither of these accounts of the disorganisation do the Committee give their endorsement, as they refrain from suggesting any increase of remuneration; while the only addition to the staff really recommended in the report is the appointment of a hall porter. How the practical rejection of both these theories of disturbance can be reconciled with the previous rejection of the Resident Surgeon’s temper theory, and all the admitted discontent, and misunderstanding, and resignations, are at the same time to be accounted for, is a problem which must be left for that peculiar logic to which the writer of this report and those members of the Council who adopted it have served themselves heirs.

We take leave of this report with saying that it is unquestionably the most remarkable document of its kind that was ever before submitted to a responsible body. In its style, spirit and aim—in what it professes and what it does not profess—in what it advances and what it witholds—in what it condones and what it condemns—it is unique in its faultiness. It is simply utterly bad. Whatever purpose it was designed to further—and we make no doubt it has one—it certainly will not serve the interests of the Hospital. Some anxiety is therein affected lest the circulation of complaints about its management should prove detrimental to the character of that institution, as also of the Council. Such anxiety is quite uncalled for. Considering the sensitiveness of the public respecting the proper ordering of such institutions, it may be taken for granted that any dissatisfaction on this head will be interpreted as a deepening interest in their humane design. The complaints in this instance would therefore not necessarily tend either to bring the Hospital officials into disrepute or throw discredit on the City Council ; but of this we are quite certain, that the adoption and circulation throughout the colony of such a report as this will inevitably do both.