THE WAIPARA HOSPITAL.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16266, 17 July 1918, Page 9

THE WAIPARA HOSPITAL.

' To THK SUITOR OK *'TnK I'HBSH ' ' Sir,—Mr ;N: D. Campbell is Inueed ,aamsinp in his letter of the Oth in.'Stant, in which he would lead the publib to believe that the deputation re- , gafSng hospital matters was large acd Wpoasentativc. Certainly Mr Starky ya present, with Messrs Sloss and Barrows, but who could say that they fepfesented OmihiP' But perhaps Mr Cimpbell would like to think so. Mr Starky certainly did say that somo of ': the gentlemen -present had como to protest against tho building of a hospital,'and only a person as sanguino as . .Mr. Campbell* could call it a speech. ' Messrs Sloss and Burrows each asked

• a question of the chairman, and then >. subsided, or were quite satisfied. If •. your correspondent would carefully read i ay letter, and study facts before xunprint, he would realise that the inaccuracies aro his own. In the ; first place, my letter said nothing , ' about opening the ball (it was more like a pantomime), but that Dr. 0. Mo > oXeUanffj-and Messrs Lcacfi an<l Lochyiead opened fire on behalf of the Scargill residents. .. Perhaps I have made mistake/ here. It must have -been 'themselves they wore speaking for. No, . '.X.Bee Mr Campbell says that., with Mr " Qreig, they were representing Stony:if hurst. I should like to ask by who's -authority ? I must not forget Mr S. "B. Gibb, who did come into the room ► when-the proceedings were nearly over. 'As he did:not arrive with the other ' ' geptlomon, or leavo with them, or i raUe his voice for or against the qucs'a won, how was I to know his mission? ;ts there were several other gentlemen present who had. not come to protest r-ajpinst the hospital. No doubt Mr ze al in opposing the scheme him think that all present were, son his side. But, as far as I can only eleven men present, apart Jjroni the members of tho Council, could JgM connted in his retinue. Five others &terein favour of the hospital, nml two Mothers tfg-e not ratepayers. Put this VSPpntaOßi side by side with the peti- ' ration received by the Council, and their course is very clear. Proceed. J' Again, your correspondent is inacin assuming that I inferred that |< t * w . as ® n favour of a hospital. What c JiL SB 'd- was "that one member of tho r Council who was not present had never t before raised an objection." Now, sir, 1 »«,I?ejry carefully followed the remarks of •he chairman, who also read extracts '/•from the Council minute-book, and I «ued to hear that Mr Campbell had Wiaed an objection, but on the other • .flhnd he was asked, and did read his l Own telegram to tho chairman, wherein y- stated "that a • maternity home i. Would bo of more benefit to the district than a hospital." And this is the r 1 Wof k tho Council are carrying out, a ?V ®*ternity home and casualty ward. the above are not facts, then'Mr at lliat meeting, lost a gol,v;i den opportunity of making his position clear.—Yours, etc., fd OMEGA.