LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 92, 13 January 1919, Page 5

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

••••• THE CLEMENS CASE THE DEMAND FOR AN INQUIRY. r Sir, —A sensation was'caused ' when !ypu published the open letter to the members of the .House of Parliament regarding what you called, the, Clemens •.case. The letter published this' day - 'created a grea'ter sensation', and caused .'■tee, to ask why the "representatives of .. the people did riot insist '/upon a , full inquiry. . .Men who have, fought, and bled for us deserve the best of tr'eatmeijl, ; and one is astounded; to know their, lives. are', held so cheap. I hqpe you will insist" on an inquiry,by a Judge of the Supreme Court.—l am, ' .etc., " ■''' '■ •,•'■'' , \;/ . ' r ;;; '. FAIR PLAY. Sir—Will you allow me to suggest . that the - writer of- the letter to Sir . James Allen, which 'Was published in your issue of even date,'should state exactly the form he desires t]ie inquiry to take' aiid'also the information'he ■wishes to obtain at the inquiry. I am v sure the general public want fair play, and will he 'shocked to think that; in "Such a sad ca.se the political element •. should appear;- : • Tlie ' father, had a right to receive a fair and just answer' and I am surprised it was not forthcoming. ' \: . ■ - ' • For the honour- of New Zealand, the public must now be placed in possession of tho real facts, and surelv will not >rest content with any Departmental reply—l am, eta., ■ DISGUSTED, ' •January 11. j, .■ Sir,—As : my .htisband Was.a member . af the Expeditionary Fprce and ope of' my brothers has been returned to New Zealand .pounded qnd . anpiiliei - is still in Franco it cap- be pderstood l am interested in the, published statement a regarding,the soper. who died at Hanme)'- -I have,, thought you.and others, - might, like to know . what. a four-year •• medical corps.ijian thinks ab'out thirigs, and therefore . spnd'the' following .extracts from a letter- which was deliver- . Ed yesterday :— . .. ..- "WhW officers, andmen 'are over-taken-by:gjpkness you ,will find that/the. in eaqh.case is prac- . tically .the same, but officers retain certain privileges.. ' I "give the condition of affairs about the hospital ship when dealing with'convalescents. The. officers' beds., we|"e. ; pfovided with light. white curtains'; |ea'an<J"biscuits were served'at 6.30 a.m.; morning tea at 10.30, afternoon .tea at .4;/supper at 9, mid those desiring same were supplied : with a nightcap.of whisky.before retir- . ing. v•: Tlie '.three, ordinary. ..meals consifted of saloon fare, .equal to that of'a first-class., hotel, and were seryed on v china or earthenware. crockery. All this was Missing .iji. thOi caso,of privates, whose meal? were plain and- wholesome and .served in enamelware."

■. NoivV Mr.' Editor,. I waiit r to. know .why invalid hrotheii/ wlio is a. private. -does not get .the same food as, the invalid . officer. Ido . hot think 'the officers de,sire the difference, and, we all know that invalid food served,on bnamel dishes does .not help during' illness, -the' same a.s| if seryed on china. ' If'morning tea is good for. ,aii invalid officer .it is - also. an,invalid private, ; ■ - The \letter .nohjtinues 'I 'remember when. on the.,, Channel mil '.'haying to place a surplus of-officer patients in onr princioal. surgical ward; with other ranks. The orderlies were so ashamed and indiguant at' .the contrast of food -that they spent all . their cash, at; the canteen in providing luxuries for. the wounded privates.'': ■ ' ■,

Now,-,.' Mr. Editor, I want to know whv. this difference'should .exist. -

The letter conti}iueH:p-"In the recent epidemic at Trentham all'officers, irrespective of the severity of their, epidemic»attack.-',-were -placed in the best-appointed'hospital.l ask why?' Tho letter also states, 1 that if 20 officers and 80. men were all suffering from bronchitis the 20 officers would have one nurse v nnd two orderlies while R0 men 'would have three nurses and five orderlies. I' ask why should officers Ijavc.. nearly 60 per cent, more of a Uursmg staff.—l mil. etc.. . A.SOLDIER'S WIFE.