THE CLEMENS CASE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 65, 11 December 1918, Page 6

THE CLEMENS CASE

MR. CLEMENS REPLIES TO THE MINISTER

Mr. Clemens has sent- to members of Parliament the following reply.— "What was practically the original copy, of the printed loiter which is now in your possession 'was in the hands of the Defence Minister on November 7, and on the same day the Minister informed mo he had made urgent requests for rcnnrts regarding tho statement made by me. At 11.30 p.m. on Wednesday last I visited the House, and sent a memo, to Sir James Allen's private secretary, asking him to see mo. I also submitted a copy of the printed letter now in your possession, and on it was the following memo.:—'This letter details tho facts as pev mine of November l>. 1 do not de■iire to do any injustice to any person, and if you have found that any statement is incorrect or enlarged, 1 shall be obliged if you will advise me before this letter in published.' The messenger at the. House informed me the sacrntjry ,VIIS not there, and that Sir James Aljen was not available. He returned the letter to me. On Thursday I 'had a telenhonic conversation with Sir ..Tames Allen's private secretary, and he then informed me that, while he was not prepared to vouch for the correctness of everything which was in my letter he knew nothing which would cause him to. think there was anything incorrect or enlarged. "I now deal with llie statement made bv t'he Defence Minister.

*"(]) The parents of Private Clemens did not desire the removal of their -son from' the Annexe to the Main Hospital. So bud was his treatment there my wife asked if she niii*'it bo allowed to nurse him at home. You will not find- in my letter a statement that Dr. Maguire .'expressed his strongest disapproval of the treatment of Private Clemens. Sir James Allen de'nies a statement which line never been made by me. Facts speak louder than words, and if a Parliamentary Committee is set up I undertake to prove there was neglect in the Auckland Annexe. "(2) My letter made no charge against tho orderly who was sent with my son. The Defunce .Minister states he was a sergeant. Hβ himself informed me he was a private. He certainly did not wear any stripes indicating that he was a non-commissioned officer. "(3) The messenger'sent.by me to Sur-geon-General Henderson denies that any request was mode "for a railway pass to Wellington. As a matter of fact my letter was opened and read by the officer to whom it ivas delivered, and was taken by him to another room. So far as the messenger knew mv letter was submitted to Surgeon-General Henderson himself, and the refusal was from the General. "(4) The Defence Minister stated that the Department would have raised no objection if I had intercepted my son and broken his journey at, Wellington, and had kept him here. This statement requires no comment, as it will Iμ obvious to everyone that I had no control over the movements of my son. "Paragraph (a) requires' no comment. I rely upon the opinion expressed by Major Maguire when he stated he was sending my.son to Hanmer to complete his cure. "(6) I stated in my letter I would not vouch for the information, which had been given to me that the orderly was nursing influenza patients ftp to within two : hours of taking charge of my son. I still believe it to be a fact. lit was made to me by the orderly himself. It was repeated by the' orderly, to a member of the Expeditionary Force. It was again repeated by the orderly to three" civilians. 1 do not doubt tho orderly's statement, and can prove before any commission that such statement was made bv him.

"(7) The Defence Minister states it is clear that if my son had not contracted influenza he would have been alive today. Let me quote from the opinion expressed by one of New Zealand's leading medical men: .'The method adopted in transferring your boy made his recovery practically impossible.' I believe that statement. "(B)'The Defence. Minister states returned soldiers are all treated alike, whether officers or not. 1 ask you <lo you believe that? .For if you do I am prepared to prove the contrary. ■ "There seems only one construction to place on the Defence Minister's statement. M.v son was u moved from Auckland nt his own request. My son continued the journey from Wellington, at his own request. My son continued the journey from Christclui.rch at his own request. My son has died. He i 6 unable to say these statements are contrary to fact. I do state positively he. told nie it was wrong to send him ou from AVellington until ho had time to recover from his fatigue. The Defence Minister has delayed his statement until it is too late for nie to effectively reply to it. I 6ubniit I am entitled to have this letter placed on record in Hansard nml given equal publicity to that which has been given to the statement made by the Minister."