"A SLIP OF THE PEN."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1216, 26 August 1911, Page 4

"A SLIP OF THE PEN."

j _ In attempting to defend a very glaring mis-statement of fact in the Chief Justice's report on the Cook Islands, the Hon. G. Foavlds put forward tho excuse that it was merely a slip of the pen. A slip of the pen on an important point is not tho sort of thing one would look for in a considered and written finding of a Supreme Court Judge, and it is a defence that cannot prove over-palatable to the person so defended. But, unfortunately for Mr. Fowlds and for the Chief Justice, "the slip" in question was not merely a slip of the pen. It may have been due to carelessness, but was not, as Mr. Fowlds asserted, "simply a case of a slip of the pen, and the use of the wrong tense." The Minister for Education should really be more careful. He overlooks the fact that SiR 4 Robert Stout not only made this slip of the pen, as -ho styles it, but he made use of the altered, form of tho letter as an argument in excuse of the Resident Commissioner's inaction. To make the point quite clear, we will quote in full the particular letter, which was one of those omitted by the Chief Justice from the series which passed between Dr. Davsox and the Resident Commissioner. Dr. Dawson wrote to the Resident Commissioner on February 27, and received no reply, and then wrote again on March 14 as follows: I am compelled to remind you that you have not replied to my letter of February 27 last. Since then I have had a letter from you on a matter of minor importance. Yon have been placed in charge of the administration of these islands, and it is your duty to see that your officers do their work. P.S.—Perhaps yon cannot sec that in this matter human lives are concerned. Dn. Dawson*, it will be seen, was protesting against the delay that had taken place in replying tc his letter of February 27 concerning the refusal to admit to the hospital certain patients requiring surgical treatment. The Resident Commissioner, stirred by this letter into malting a reply, wrote the same day (March U) as follows: — T have (ho htnnur to acknowledge (ho receipt of your letters of the 27th February Inst and the 11th inst. respectively, and iii replv In inform you that the whole of tin? correspondence will be handed to the Chief Medical Officer on his arrival for him to deal with, as indicated in mine- of Ist February addressed to von. Both these and a third letter were omitted by the Chief Justice from .his reuort, although he published

all the preceding letters in full. This is how he summarised the letters omitted: No reply s?ems to have been sent to Dr. Dawson, and on Ulh March ho again wrote lo the Resident Commissioner, and the Bosidout Comniis.-ioner replied on the 1-lth stating that lie hod handed the correspondence lo Dr. Chcsson on his arrival, and that was why he had not communicated with Dr. Dawson.

Here then we have first of all the Chief Justice stating that the Resident Commissioner's letter of March 14 contained the assertion that he (the Resident Commissioner) "had handed the correspondence to Dr. Chcsson on his arrival," which, as the text of the letter quoted above shows, was an incorrect presentation of the letter. But still worse, on this incorrect presentation of the facts he bases the excuse which he nuts forward for the delay on the Resident Commissioner's part in answering Dr. Dawson's letter, for he says "and that [because he had handed the correspondence to Dr. Chesson] was why he had not communicated with Dr. Dawson." t How can this expression of opinion be justified in face of the facts. As we stated above, it is clearly shewn not merely that the letter was misquoted, but that the inaccurate version was utilised to find an excuse for the neglect of the Resident Commissioner to reply to Dr. Dawson's urgent letter. The necessity for finding an excuse for the delay which occurred will, perhaps, be better understood if we quote Dr. Dawson's letter of February 27 in full. He wrote:

I find that the Hospital was gazetted open in April, 1910. As Dr. Story has declined to admit to the Hospital the patients referred to in my letters of January 31 and February 3 last, and as Dr. Chcsson has not returned at the time you indicated in your letter of February 8. I must ask you what is to ho done in ths matter. It is an unfortunate circumstance that some surgical cases will not wait for anyone's convenience, and asi one of the cases referred to in my letter of January 31 has already (lied, and I had to do an emergency operation on another in a Native house, I decline to accept any responsibility either legal or moral in. this or any similar case. By the terms of your letter of February 8 the rrspansihiiity will bo shared by Dr. Story and yourself."

This letter was the third letter omitted by the Chief Justice from the series published in his report, This letter is tho ono which the Resident Commissioner neglected to reply to until prompted by tho letter quoted of March 1-1. And the Chief Justice sought to excuse the delay on the strength of the misquotation which wc exposed when the report was first presented, to Parliament. The public may well wonder first of all why the three letters quoted above were omitted by the Chief Justice from his report, although he quoted the whole of the preceding letters on the same subject in full; and, secondly, how he could have been so careless as tc misquote the Resident Commissioner's letter of March 14, and use the inaccurate version as an argument in defence of the Resident Commissioner's inaction.