AN UNUSUAL CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 19788, 11 February 1928, Page 2

AN UNUSUAL CASE.

X 0 THE EDIXOE. Sir, —1 was informed last night from a telephone message received Irom Mr Knight, chairman of the Hospital Board, that the Benevolent Committee, which really consists of the whole board, has considered my case for readmission to the institution, but had come to the conclusion that my request could not be entertained. To find out the real reason of refusal J. called on one of the board members this morning who was present at the committee meeting, and was informed that the real reason for disallowing me to reenter the home was because the present writer did not remain at Addington for the period stated by Mr Bundle, S.M., who adjudicated in my case, arid that my political predilections were not considered, and there was no prejudice in the matter.

So far, so good, but, sir, there is my side of the case, and, as you were good enough to insert a couple of communications of mine under the above heading, and in justice to myself, may I bo allowed to say another word or two regarding the matter? When Mr Sourr, the present chairman of the Benevolent Committee, was first elected to the board, just when the Great War was drawing to a close, the present writer was brought bcfore_ a committee at the institution consisting of the late Mr W. T. Talboys (the then chairman), .Dr Newlands, Mr Sourr, and the late Mrs Jackson. I was informed then, through the chairman, that a doctor had stated I was ht lor light employment, and they gave me one month to find work after being, mark you, about eighteen yea*s nfc the home/ A very pertinent remark passed by the late Mrs Jackson at the time is interesting: ‘‘ft is rather a had time putting a person out to find employment with thousands of soldiers returning, and they naturally having the first claim.” Docs it not on reflection seem unreasonable to put a. man out of the institution after being there eighteen years, and at a period when returned soldiers—heroes all—should rightly have the first chance? What chance had your present correspondent against such overwhelming odds? After a month elapsing 1 was again brought before the late chairman, Mr Talboys, and ho said: “The best years of your life have been spout at the institution, and the best thing for you to do is to settle down and rest content with your lot.” 1 know as a fact that the present chairman told certain persons that he would have had me out years ago only the other members wore against him. When put out of the institution about fifteen months ago (writing Lorn memory) it was not because I refused to work, but because I would not work in the laundry. Working . inongst machinery 1 cannot now do aider any conditions. I told tho present chairman 1 did not mind doing other work, but w'as told, in effect, that it was either the laundry or leave the inslifution, so I left. On two or three occasions I mve attempted to be readmitted to the Home, and on one particular occasion a friend rung up the chairman, and no replied “Never; the man will not work and is an agitator.” Again only quite recently two social workers rang up the present chairman of tho Benevolent Committee concerning my re-admission, and his reply was to the same ellcct. Within the last month or two a friend of mine got in touch with Dr Newlands, a member of the board, with regard to my getting back to the institution, and he replied that Standfield was a man of great intelligence, with an implication that I,was dangerous. J am not writing you for the purpose of advertising my ability; I have a higher object, and that is to put my case before the public; truthfully and without embellishment.—l am, etc., Enuorr Rtamimei.ii. February 10. P.S.—When Mr George Porteous f»as manager of the home I worked for two years in the laundry, but I gave it up because the working amongst machinery is not in lino with my temperament, and, even more, rather than work amongst same, f would go hungrv. —E.S.