LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 229, 21 June 1919, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

REPORT OF EPIDEMIC COMMISSION •THE MINISTERS CIiITICISM. Sir,—With reference lo the publication of above report and the Minister of Public Health's statement thereon, 1 do not menu lo enter into a newspaper controversy, but consider that certain relations of this matter should be made quite-dear to the public. What is now published irj not (he full report, but as much, no doubt, as tho papers could find space for. 1 acknowledge that Iho summary is fair, and that the Press probably could not publish the full text of the "interim" and "main" reports. I mention this point simply because Ihcrc is much in the reports which makes it moro clear why wo arrived at our "recommendations" and "findings" than can be gathered by reading tho "recommendations" and "findings" by 'iieiuiselves.

With regard to the Minister's complaints. Ho makes out a case throughout by'the simple process of quoting tho evidence that suits the case he wants lo make, and leaving out what would upset his contentions. That method is as old as political controversy. For some reason, best known to himself, tho Minister for somo time past has thought it necessary to directly and indirectly attack the Commissioners. We were cnciged with performing an "unusual and unconstitutional act," when we sent our leport to tho Governor-General through the Under-Secretary of Internal Affairs. Now it is suggested that we are guilty of misrepresentation, -delay, unfairness arid general want of capacity. Let us see what all this amounts to. Wo sent our interim report from Christchureh on April 23 to His Excellency through tho Under-Secretary for Internal Affairs, Ko one said we had done wrong, and on May 13 wo forwarded our main report in the same way: then the Minister said our action was "unconstitutional." With reference to tho misrepresentation, it amounts only lo this: that in the Minister be was made to oay: "I received warning in Seplemlier to prepare for an epidemic," but what lie really said was: "I received no warning to preparo for an epidemic." This oceiirrn) on account of tile. typewriter being blurred and indistinct. The "received no" were run together without any spacing. and, in reading, tile "no" was overlooked. The explanation was given -to the Government before the Minister's criticism was published. On the question of "delay," I deny that: any linnecessoT.v delay on the part of tho Commission has ever taken place. At the request of tho Department, which said it was on its trial, we received a voluminous schedule of subjects, on which we were asked lo hear evidence. Whilst the Commission was called the Epidemic Commission, its order of reference required it (o inquire into the relations and administration of the Health Department and local authorities, in regard to matters of "public health generally." It was both an epidemic and a public health Commission. Instead of securing information merely by public sittings, as a Court, the Commission instituted direct inquiries ill various lieeessary directions by visits of inspections, correspondence, the receiving and dealing with special communications, reports, tables,,returns, and memoranda of value in the inquiry. I am positively certain that, taking the whole period, we had more to do when we were not sitting in public than when we were. One »f the most important letters we had retched us on ■ 3!fiy 1. Tho Hawke's Bay Division of the British Medical Association submitted its evidence in a memorandum, which reached us on April SO. It true •that our chairman sought a month's extension from the end of April, but that was merely formal, as Sir John Dennis-ton-explained in his letter that' we would not likely require the full month. When ' the Minisler infcrenually charges Sir John Denniston with unfairness, I feel called upon to say that in all my dealings with public men I have never met a man with a greater regard for what is fair than the chairman of. our recent Commission. The , chairman refused to take the newspper cuttings from the Hon. Mr. liussell as evidence, and for the very good reason that, the extracts, were not direct or relevant ii.-for-ination. I may say that we had already read the references in the Auckland papers before wo <mhi© to "Wellington* and had tested the value of these newspaper comments by taking direct: evidence in Auckland. When the Minister suggested that if we were not nrepared to take the newspaper extracts as- eyidonco of facts we should summon the editors and reporters of tho papers, wo could not possibly take him seriously. Did lie mean to suggest that we snould return to Auckland, and summon tue editors to tell us who w'rote the icnoLls, then get the reporters to tell lis who told them the various matters embodied in their reports, then secure the evidence of the doctors, chemists, or_ other persons whom the reporters bad interviewed, to find perhaps at last that the yews given were mainly impressions. At various times we received information without the informant being utesent 0!' taking an oath, but we never a. any time dreamt of regarding ail thai matter as evidence. . The 'Minister snends much time ami space to prove that the epidemic was in Xew Zealand in its virulent form mior t-o the-arrival of the Niagara oil October 2, and then ho seems to be .offended because the Commission did not pay more attention to his statement '.hat ho "received no warninir to pve» n F e „ a -j epidemic." If it were in. Kw tatad for a month or two before Octobci Jsurely that was warning enough. re":!''ds the general capacity of the t"inmi=sion. what they overlooked and what thev did not, none of us are young li.en. And we have been tried out m so man> fiel.k that we can well leave it- to i public to iiuke. The point of wit with which Hip" Minisler d*M-T suvpose it it intended as wit or humour °m» tlii"? of thet kind—is 100 deet) foi me, so I leave the matter—^ ■