KUMARA HOSPITAL INQUIRY (REPORT OF COMMISSION).

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1885 Session I, H-40

H.—4o

1885. NEW ZEALAND.

KUMARA HOSPITAL INQUIRY (REPORT OF COMMISSION).

Return to an Order of the House of Representatives, dated 16th September, 1885. Ordered, " That there be laid before this House a copy of the report of the Commissioners recently appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Kumara Hospital Committee and the medical officer of that institution."—(Me. GUINNESS.)

The Commissionees, Kumara Hospital Inquiry, to the Hon. the Colonial Seoketaey. Sib,— Hokitika, 10th August, 1885. We have the honour to submit our report upon the matters mentioned in your letter of the 10th July ultimo, requesting us to hold an inquiry into the circumstances which attended the appointment of Dr. Monckton as Surgeon-Superintendent of the Kumara Hospital, the termination of his engagement, and the appointment of his successor. After due notice to Dr. Monckton and the Hospital Committee, we commenced the inquiry on Friday evening, the 7th instant, at 7 o'clock, after the conclusion of the Warden's Court. Our sittings occupied that evening and the whole of the following day from 10 a.m. to 9 o'clock p.m. Notes of the evidence taken are forwarded herewith. We now proceed to give our opinion on the matters referred to us, with the exception of the circumstances attending the appointment of Dr. Monckton, concerning which nothing has been brought under our notice, nor has any question ever been raised except as to the legal interpretation of the agreement entered into with him, and that has already been made the subject of litigation. The subject-matter of our investigation, as disclosed by the papers and evidence put before us, seems to resolve itself into three divisions : First, the. dismissal of Dr. Monckton ; secondly, the manner of conducting the election of the new Committee in January ; and, thirdly, the appointment of Dr. Davy, and the nature of his engagment. Firstly : Dr. Monckton alleges that the true cause of his dismissal was the private malice entertained against him by Mr. Henry Burger, an active member of the Committee. The cause of this malice is alleged to be that Dr. Monckton struck off Mr. Burger's name from the medical list of the Odd Fellows' Society, and Dr. Monckton goes on to assume that this step aroused the implacable hostility of Mr. Burger, who at last succeeded, by his efforts and influence with others, in prevailing so far upon the rest of the Committee that a majority of that body was ready to go all lengths in procuring the dismissal of the doctor, without any regard to right or justice. Of this extreme and apparently not very probable allegation strong proof ought to be adduced, but of its truth we find no evidence whatever, and we see no reason for believing it. We have not found any difficulty in forming an opinion upon the true cause of the undoubtedly strong feeling of hostility which the majority of the Committee entertained towards Dr. Monckton. We think the cause is unquestionably to be found in the language and demeanour of Dr. Monckton towards the members of the Committee themselves, whereby he managed deeply to offend them, and partly in complaints and statements which reached them from various quarters of similar language and demeanour towards subscribers and patients. Mr. Burger, who was deputed by the Committee to represent that body, was very desirous to call the evidence of numerous persons to prove the offensive demeanour of the doctor towards them on various occasions. This evidence, however, after giving the matter the fullest consideration, we decided could not be admitted. The complaints had never been formally brought before the Committee nor under the notice of the doctor, and we judged it to be unfair to him to permit such charges to be gone into now, when many months had elapsed and it would be impossible for him to satisfactorily refute them. We felt that we could not deal specifically with such complaints, that every fresh statement made by each witness would open up new matter for inquiry, that the investigation would be well-nigh interminable, and the result altogether unsatisfactory. For these reasons, although we were reluctant to shut out anything which the Committee so much wished to press, we considered that the only complaints of incivility or offensive conduct on the part of the doctor that we could listen to would be either such as concerned members of the Committee personally, or such as had at some time been brought before the Committee and under notice of the doctor. We considered that what we had chiefly to determine on this head was the question

H,—4o

whether the majority of the Committee honestly believed that the habitual deportment of the doctor towards those with whom he had to do was so offensive as to alienate subscribers and to be prejudicial to the welfare of the hospital. We think it is fairly inferrible from the evidence that Dr. Monckton was very sensitive to any encroachment, by means of the tickets and machinery of the hospital, upon what he deemed the legitimate sphere of his private practice. We do not say that he had no good reason for this jealousy, or that such abuse of hospital machinery' may not have been as common at Kumara as it is in many other places ; but we can scarcely avoid the belief that Dr. Monckton was wont to manifest his dissatisfaction and annoyance by the use of language and demeanour which were unnecessarily offensive, and which, in fact, caused deep resentment in the minds of those who were subjected to it. The evidence of Joseph Mead will illustrate what we mean. Our opinion is that the course pursued by the majority of the Committee is quite consistent with the belief that they acted in good faith, and in the belief that they were doing what was best for the interests of the hospital. This conclusion does not seem to be in any way invalidated by mere proof of a personal feeling of hostility to himself, if that feeling was provoked by a gratuitously offensive manner to them, and if they believed that a similar manner was displayed to subscribers and patients. It would be otherwise if any reason had been given for thinking that the doctor had incurred animosity, either by persisting in doing his duty, or by trying to induce the Committee to do theirs. But of this there is no evidence at all; and, on the other hand, the general allegation of incivility of manner has not been denied. Before leaving this part of the subject, we think it right to remark that the Committee might fairly look beyond the bare punctilious performance of prescribed duties within the hospital wards, since the hospital doctor is in fact the doctor for the whole district, and his general character as regards kindliness and courtesy is a matter of public concern. We think these considerations might have a legitimate weight in the question of determining an engagement, always provided no legal wrong was done. Secondly : The next head is the conduct of the election of Committee-men in January. The whole Committee having resigned in order to test, by a new election, the feeling of the public in respect of the doctor, an election was accordingly held in the month of January. At this election, it is said, that votes were made by the sale of 10s. tickets ; and we have no doubt at all that this was the case, although we are unable to say to what extent. But, so far from being surprised at this, we should have been rather surprised, if it had not been done in a case where strong feeling on both sides was displayed. The only way of preventing it was to call in all books of tickets before the election, and not to issue any more tickets until after the election was over. Bnt nothing was really done outside the usual course of things. The custom was for every member of the Committee to have a ticketbook for the very purpose of selling as many tickets as he "could, and unless debarred by some rules on the subject it is not very easy to see why he should refuse to sell tickets during an election. It appears that tickets to the amount of £6 10s. were either issued on credit, or, at all events, were not accounted for on the first night of meeting after the election. Of this amount, £4 was in the hands of Mr. Spyers, the late secretary, and the treasurer, Mr. Nicholson, a supporter of Dr. Monckton's, reported that he had obtained adequate security for the payment of this amount by Mr. Spyers. The remainder of the money was duly paid in by the Committee-men who had issued the tickets, and who, according to the general practice, were looked upon as responsible for it. We do not express any opinion on the desirability of admitting voters in this manner, but it certainly increases the hospital funds, and it is not very easy to see how the multiplication of votes can tend to defeat the expression of public opinion. Thirdly :We come now to the appointment of Dr. Davy. On the 19th May, having obtained a legal opinion from the late Mr. Warner against the claim for damages made by Dr. Monckton, the Committee resolved that Dr. Davy be finally appointed Surgeon-Superintendent, and that an urgent telegram be sent to him requesting him to come as soon as possible. Dr. Davy accordingly arrived on the 2nd June, and, after interviews with some members of the Committee, with Dr. Monckton, and with Mr. Seddon, the member for the district, and with Mr. Campbell, a former member of the Committee, Dr. Davy was impressed with the belief that things were not quite so satisfactory as he might reasonably have hoped. He found that Dr. Monckton was engage in a lawsuit against the Committee, and good reason was given him for apprehending that, instead of leaving the place, he was likely to remain and retain the club appointments, which were an assured source of income. It is not much to be wondered at if Dr. Davy expressed his dissatisfaction unambiguously, and talked of packing up his traps and departing, but he says that he never accused the Committee of deceiving him, and certainly he never informed the Committee that he had any intention of departing in any way from the engagement he had entered into. His intention to go away, if he had one, and his subsequent resolution to remain for a month, were matters within his own breast, or were only communicated to individuals in casual conversation. As a matter of fact, Dr. Davy entered at once on his duties and has continued to discharge them up to this day. On the 16th June the House Committee reported to the Committee that Dr. Davy had been duly installed, and it was there resolved that an agreement with him should be prepared by the Secretary and submitted for approval at the next meeting. The Secretary drafted an agreement, but thinking it in some respect faulty he put it away inside one of the hospital books, meaning to draft a new one. On the 25th June he received the telegram from the Under-Secretary, about which so much has been said, and which will be found in the file of papers. This telegram, in which the Committee was de'sired not to enter at present into any new engagement,- was shown by the Secretary to several members of Committee. - On the same day Dr. Monckton's case against the Committee was coming on for trial at the Besident Magistrate's Court, and one of the Committee, Mr. Hannah, obtained from the "Secretary, for the purposes of the trial, the book, in which as has been stated was

2

H.—4o.

3

placed the draft agreement prepared, but afterwards condemned, by the Secretary. The same evening Mr. Hannah returned the agreement, executed by the Treasurer and the House Committee on the one part, and Dr. Davy on the other. This transaction seems to require some explanation, and the view which we take of its meaning is this : We think that the members of Committee who got the agreement signed apprehended from the terms of Mr. Cooper's telegram that the Government might refuse to ratify Dr. Davy's appointment, and they imagined that this intention might be frustrated by getting the agreement executed before the contents of the telegram were officially communicated to the Committee. This perfectly gratuitous bit of smart practice has had the effect of complicating a very simple matter, which only needed to be plainly stated in order to be clearly understood. Mr. Cooper's telegram shows that the Government was under the impression that Dr. Monckton's successor was only temporarily appointed. This was undoubtedly a misapprehension. Nothing could be more absolute than Dr. Davy's appointment. The resolution of the 19th May was quite unconditional; an urgent telegram was sent; Dr. Davy arrived, took charge of the hospital the very next day, and has remained in charge ever since. We have not found in the official relations between Dr. Davy and the Committee any particular which qualifies the absolute character of his appointment. There was no reason whatever why these gentlemen should take alarm at Mr. Cooper's telegram. All that was necessary was to inform the Government of the plain facts of the case, and if that had been done no difficulty could well have arisen. But the Committee was undoubtedly placed in a false position by the two-clever zeal of the House Committee, and we think they exercised a wise discretion in doing nothing. They have never recognized the agreement which had been thus executed before it had been submitted to the Committee for approval, in compliance with their resolution of the 16th June, and Mr. Burger not only told the Secretary when he first heard of it that the thing was ridiculous and could not be recognized, but he also explained the matter to Dr. Davy, who at once told him to take whatever course he might think right about the agreement. We believe that there is no other point of importance requiring comment from us. The evidence upon which we have formed our opinions accompanies this report,* and the other papers are returned. We hope that what we have said may prove of some service in assisting the Government to understand the true state of matters. We have, &c, Joseph Giles. The Hon. the Colonial Secretary. Jackson Keddell.

* The evidence was not ordered to be printed. [Approximate Cost of Paper. —Preparation, not given; Printing (1,225 copies), £3 10s. Gd.)]

Authority: Geobge Didsbuby, Government Printer, Wellington.—lBBs.