THE HAGEY INSTITUTE.

Observer, Volume XVIII, Issue 1020, 16 July 1898, Page 2

THE HAGEY INSTITUTE.

It Punishes the ' Observer.'

We were not surprised to find amongst our correspondence, within a few hours of the publication of the last issue of the Obsebveb, the following communication which speaks volumes for itself and the people who sent it to us : — Auckland, N.Z., 6th July, 1898. The Editor of the Obsbbver, Auckland. Sir,— l have to request you to discontinue this company's advertisement.— Yours troly, Jno. Dawson, ActiDg Secretary, * The New Zealand Hsgey Institute, , (Limited.) "We axe so accustomed to this sort of thing that it has long ceased to trouble us. And in the case in question, the loss of the few shillings a week derived from this source of revenue is not. a- matter of concern. But we do dislike the thought that this

advertisement in onr columns was designed asa bribe to ensure our silence. Else why was it so suddenly withdrawn the moment we gave publicity- to a brief narrative of the scandals surrounding the management of the Hagey Institute in Sydney ?

We .axe annoyed to think that the Dawaona and the Colbecks and the Garlicka and the other people, who are running this concern for the purposes of their own^profit should have held so poor an estimate of the independence of the Observer as to ' imagine for one moment that their paltry bribe of an advertisement — or any other bribe they could offer — would secure the silence of this journal in the face of discreditable disclosures such as those we made public last week. The Observer is not so easily silenced. It fills in Auckland the mission of a fearless and outspoken journal — ever ready to expose shams and wrong-doing — and its Bilence concerning the Hagey Institute hitherto was not because it derived revenue from an advertisement, but because these things that the Sydney Truth so fearlessly laid bare were not known to us nntil we read them in print.

Bat having become aware of them, we did not hesitate to publish them, apart altogether from any considerations of revenue from advertisements or any other source of revenue controlled by the local owners of this Ha gey Institute. Moreover, in publishing them, we indicated our intention to return to the subject at a later periocLand deal with matters relating to the Auckland Hagey Institute, which, we thought, should be made public. Was it this announcement that stimulated the -owners of this concern to embark upon a policy .of reprisals? And did they think the withdrawal of the paltry advertise- . ment appearing in our columns would be a sufficient reprisal to frighten us and deter us from doing our duty as independent and conscientious journalists ? If so, they were sadly mistaken in the Obsebver.

We are Btill engaged prosecuting our inquiries into the Hagey Institute, and as a result of the information already in our possession, we may inform the directors that this advertisement would have been removed from the columns of the Obseeveb by ourselves even if the directors had not ordered it out. The advertisement in question guarantees the absolute and permanent cure of narcotism and alcoholism. Will the directors inform us how many absolute cures they have effected? We find that thousands of pounds have been paid to them by way of fee?, and many more than a hundred people have passed through the institution. But our most diligent inquiries have succeeded in bringing. to light only one individual who has kept from liquor since he took the treatment. / Many patients we can name who are even greater drunkards now than they were before they entered the Hagey. But we can only dis. cover one cure.

The Herald some time ago published a glowing narrative from one tradesman who was quoted as a notable cure. That man has very much lapsed. Another mdi. vidnal web sent to a neighbouring town to open a branch institute, and distingnished himself, after several patients had offered themselves for treatment, by getting blazing drunk himself. Moreover, we would ask the directors if it is not a fact that more than one patient has died Bince he took the treatment. Theße and other facts that have come to oar knowledge sirice we commenced our enquiries would have prompted us as conscientious journalists to withdraw this advertisement of the Hagey Institute from our columns if the directors had not anticipated us by countermanding it. But we are glad they have done so for obvious reasons. They have shown by their action that they have something to hide- and that' they dread scrutiny and criticism.'

- At the same time, we would ask the directors in all friendliness whether it would not be honest and wise of them to withdraw, their . advertisement from all newspapers. They are publicly guaranteeing the absolute and permanent! care of alcoholism and narcotism and are charging

high fees for cures they, are not making. This is not right. Moreover, it leaves the directors open to actions for.theiecovery of the £25 fees they have charged, and also makeß them liable for prosecution of another and more serious character. Are they prepared for this? To an extent, we are sorry for the owners of the Hagey Institute, because they have invested thousands of pounds in this venture, and are likely to lose their money. But they have no right to expect the public at large, and chiefly the friends of drunken people— who are willing to pay any price in order to effect a cure— to make good their loss under glowing pretences that are not realised. ■

So far as the treatment itself is concerned, we are not prepared to Bay that it will not cure . drunkenness. But the treatment must be in the hands of capable people, each, for example, as Kirkp&trick, Cowart, and the others who established the Hagey Institute here. They unquestionably treated the patients with wonderful success. They had made a study of dipsomania, and understood how to handle the patients, with happy results. But the local people, who knew nothing of the disease of drunkenness, and who saw in the treatment only a quick way of mafeing money, have not been successful in the working of the institution as the Americans were. Would it not be well for them to admit this frankly and face the situation,, at once ?