THE HOSPITAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MOTION.

Dunstan Times, Issue 636, 26 June 1874, Page 2

THE HOSPITAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MOTION.

(TO THE KDITOIt OPTUEDUNSTAN TIMES.) Sir, —The member for the Dunstau District in the Provincial Council appeals to entertain curious notions of his duty as a representative, and of the obligations which devolve upon him to fulfil the mission ho undertook to discharge on behalf of the Dunstau District Hospital Committee.

To take measures to give legal effect to the resolution passed by the Committee seems to have been interpreted by Mr Hazlett to mean that he should make a mere formal motion on the subject, and then do what he liked further in the matter; and it would appear, from the alacrity with which he turned round upon himself by withdrawing his motion in favor of Mr Hallenstein’s amendment, as if the whole question had been sat upon by him and Mr Hallenstcin, and the part to bo performed duly arranged, in order that his own opinion on the question at issue might he accepted by the Council, in lieu of that of the Committee, as expressed by the motion he had himself proposed, and which he thought forsooth “Honorable members who had experience of the election of hospital surgeons on the gold-fields would seethe necessity for.” If Mr Hazlett had refused the work imposed upon him by the Hospital Committee, on account of his own opinions on the matter, or if he had told the Committee that he could not engage to support their views in the Council on that account, it would have been to his credit as an independent reptesentative. But he does not appear to have done either ; nor docs he seem to have so much as told the Council that the alteration of the Hospital Ordinance proposed by his motion was the result of a recommendation by the Dunstau Hospital Committee. Had it not been for the reliance placed in Mr Hazlett to honestly perform his duty in the matter, some other member of the Council Would doubtless have been found who would have told the Council this, and would have supported the views of the Committee in the matter, when I cannot help but think that a di;fereiit decision on the merits of the case would have been come to by the Council. The fact of Mr Hazlett being President of the Hus; ital Committee makes the matter appear worse, in my view, than it otherwise would ; not alone that it betrays a breach of trust on his part, but because it is calculated to produce an impression on the public mind that the Hospital Com-

mittee tlms represented, whatever it may say to the contrary, is really desirous of depriving the subscribers of the right to vote for the Hospital Surgeon, and of securing for the Committee and tho residents of Clyde the sole management aud guidance of the Hospital, without regard to those who live in the more remote parts of the district—except to get their contributions. That this impression already exists to some extent, aud that it is calculated to damage seriously the well-being of tho Institution cannot be doubtful. It is necessary that this feeling should be removed, rather than strengthened, and I believe the Committee are seriously desirous of doing so, and of making the Institution worthy of being supported by all the residents of the district. It is better to do this, and have one good hospital, well supported and adequate to the requirements of the whole district, than to have two, or, perhaps, more hospitals established. This appears to be tho result which Mr Hazlett and those who think with him, that the choice of the Medical Oflicer should devolve solely upon the Committee, is likely to produce. In their view of tho matter, there is hut one remedy for th# abuse connected with his election by the subscribers, and that in effect means: “Let him bo appointed by me and my friends.” although Mr Hozlott admitted in tho Council that the abuse would have been remedied by the adoption of his motion, as he is reported in the Mercury to have said, on adopting Mr Hallenatein's amendment, that “it would have the same effect." The folly and weakness betrayed by such conduct ia too apparent to need comment.

In conclusion, I will say, if the decision of the Hospital Committee on a question of this kind is not to be accepted by the President as final and binding, and to be acted on in good faith by those who undertake the duty of such action, no person elected by the subscribers to represent any part of the district, not satisfied to be a mere sycophant, and say ditto to the ideas of others, could well consent to act with a committee who would permit its decisions to be over-ruled and set at naught in the manner in which this has been by Mr Hazlett in the Council. If this sort of thing is not discountenanced at once it will tend to destroy all confidence in the integrity of the management of the Hospital by the Committee ; and so far, it would have the effect of showing, not that the Committee are the fittest persons to elect the medical officer, but quite the contrary. 1 cannot doubt but that the members of the Committee will see it in this light; and that, independently of all questions relating to the merits of Mr Hazlett’s motion, they will see the necessity nf maintaining the decision of the Committee, aud take measures accordingly. I am, &c., NEMO. Alexandra, June 10, 1874.