DR. CAMPBELL AND THE HOSPITAL STAFF.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1250, 9 March 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

DR. CAMPBELL AND THE HOSPITAL STAFF.

Sib, —In the only letter on my case which I sent to the newspapers, I said I would write again when I got a copy of the Commissioners' report. In justice to myself, I carry out my Eurpose, as there are some facts which have een grossly misrepresented, and others that have never been placed before the public at all. The following is a copy of the letter and memorial sent by seven members of the Hospital staff to the Government: — A meeting of the staff of the Christchurch Hospital was held on Saturday, August 4th, 1877. Present—Drs. Turnbull, Nedwill, Powell, Deamer, Doyle, Frankish, and Mr Bell-Hay. Dr. Turnbull was voted to the chair, and Dr. Frankißh requested to act as secretary. The Chairman first drew the attention of the meeting to the fact that every member of the staff was present with the exception of Mr Prins and Mr D. Campbell. Mr Prins's absence was unavoidable in consequence of his being out of town for two or three days. The Chairman then invited an expression of opinion from every member present, and Btated, that in discussion, while the fullest latitude would be given, each member of the staff would be kind enough to remember that so far as Mr Campbell was concerned, the matter to be discussed was of the utmost importance. He hoped, therefore, that each would speak and act with calmness and thorough impartiality, leaning always to Mr •Campbell's side on all points where the slightest doubt existed. After a long discussion the following questions were put througli the chairman to Mr Bell Hay : Q. Did you receive any information from Mr D. Campbell at either of the consultations held on August 4th and August sth respectively as to Mr R. Mackay's previous mental condition ? A. No. Q. Did you on a previous occasion attend Mr R. Mackay on behalf of Mr D. Campbell, while suffering from the results of intemperance ? A. I never attended him for any illness resulting from intemperance, but in my opinion no medical man coidd fail to recognise that he was of intemperate habits, so much so that when I attended him for a rheumatic affection of the heart, during Mr D. Campbell's illness twelve months' previously, I told him that if he wished to live he must lead a more temperate life. It was then unanimously resolved to forward the following letter to the Colonial Secretary. (Signed) James S. Tubkbuii, Chairman. Christchurch, July 31st, 1877. To the Honorable the Colonial Secretary of New Zealand. Sir _We, the undersigned, members of the staff of the Christchurch Hospital, beg to draw your attention to a case which has recently been pending between Mr Donald Campbell, one of our number, and Messrs McConnell and Todd, the executors of the estate of the late Mr E. Mackay. We forward the newspaper reports of the issues, and the evidence taken, and respectfully request your special attention to the facts as appearing therein. I Here follow the twelve separate allega tions which will be found set out in full in the report of the Commissioners.] We feel that the above circumstances challenge the grave consideration and the active interference of the Government of the colony, as controlling the public hospitals. We feel that the character of the profession is compromised to such an extent that no Eractitioner in regard to whom such conduct as been proved ought to continue on the staff of a public institution such as the Christchurch Hospital, inasmuch as the public look upon a hospital appointment as a guarantee of professional integrity. We have the honor to be, Your obedient servants, (Signed) Jamks S. Tubnbull, Chairman. William Deameb. P. Doyle. J. D. Fbankish. Thomas B. Hay. COT/BTNET NeUWIIX. Llewellyn Powell. The following is a copy of my answers sent to the Government: — Christchurch, Sept. 28th, 1877. To the Hon. the Colonial Secretary of N. Z. Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 14th September, 1877, and beg to report that on application to the secretary of the memorialists of the Christchurch Hospital, I received a copy of the memorial, which is dated August 4th, 1877; that is, more than six weeks after its issue. I have carefully read and considered its contents, and in justice to myself I feel that I cannot pass it unnoticed. I submit that there was no meeting of the staff, because it was not held in the Hospital, and because neither Dr. Parkerson (the consulting surgeon) nor myself received notice of such meeting. Hence the chairman's statement, that all were present except Messrs Prins and Campbell is incorrect. I now take the liberty to draw your attention to my answers to the different clauses in the memorial, as they have been drawn up. 1. It is true that my professional charge was £22 Is, and was presented, according to the advice of my legal adviser, inasmuch as all claims against the estate of R. McKie had been requested to be sent in, but it was fully intended that this sum should be refunded, if the donation was granted by law. 2. The house of Miss Patrick is a house where I send patients frequently, but on the occasion of the late McKie's last illness, was not aware of his being there until I received a message to attend him. I may here state that I attended him at Miss Patrick's during some months' illness on a previous occasion. The statement that McKie was not satisfied with my professional attendance is not compatible with the fact, that I hold in my possession a substantial proof of his gratitude in the form of a present of a gold pencil case, given me on another occasion after paying me an account of over £HO for attendance extending over a year. 1 was sufficiently paid for my services, and nothing but gratitude could have led him to bestow that gift. It is true 1 refused one or two parties to see the patient; but in doing so I was acting in strict accordance with my duty as his medical attendant. One of these I refused at the dying man's request. The statement that this one was admitted on the day previous to McKie's death, only under the threat that another medical man would be called in, is not true, for not only on the day previous to his death, but on the day previous to that also, a medical man Attended in consultation at my own request. 3 and 4. T am charged with obtaining the papers in question when McKie was in an unsound state of mind, or in a state of delirium. This charge is also without foundation. About twelve r.oon of that day, his lawyer deemed him sufficiently sound in mind to add a codicil to his w'ill ; at 3 p.m. that day Dr. Hay saw him, along with myself and must testify that he was then of sound mind. Is it not highly improbable then, that lie could have been of unsound mind on the same day, between tlie the hours of 12 and 3, or between 12 and 1, at which time, I stated on oath, that I received most unexpectedly the papers in question. 5. The statement that when I presented the cheque at the proper bank, payment was refused, is incorrect. I presented the cheque and asked if I might place it to my credit at

my own Bank, and when it waß returned "signature unlike," I desired to see the accountant, which I did, and he told me that my affidavit was all that was necessary to make the signature good. On my oath, I stated that McKie signed the cheque, and I maintain that not a particle of evidence was adduced to disprove or controvert this statement. 6. At my interview with the solicitor for the executors, he informed me that as the donation was not in the will, it would require to be secured by law, in order to free the executors from future liability, and for that purpose he advised me to consult my own solicitor, at the same time saying that he would not resist the claim, a circumstance without which I should never have proceeded any farther in the matter, even although he told me in the presence of Miss Patrick, that he had left his mother largely provided for. 7. When I saw McKie soon after his admission he was suifering from acute rheumatism, with heart disease of old standing, and complicated with congestion of the lungs. It is true that I heard of his somewhat intemperate habits (this I stated in Court), but I never saw him under the influence of drink, nor did I ever treat him for delirium tremens. The extraordinary statement " that I could not recognise a dissipated man," when such individual was not under the influence of drink or its consequences, when under my care, is my professional opinion, and must be taken for what it is worth. 8. I am not aware of not having told Dr. Hay that there had been delirium. I gave him the history of the case, as is usual in consultation. His delirium was gradual as his disease made progress, just the same as he suffered almost every winter, and more especially during the one previous to his last illness. 9. On the same evening I told Mr John Anderson of this city (a gentleman well known in New Zealand), of my having received the valuable papers, and afterwards spoke to McKie in the presence of Miss Patrick about them. I acted according to Mr Anderson's advice by going to the Bank on Monday morning. 10. I candidly confess that until I saw the figures on the back of the deposit receipt that I did not know which of us wrote them. It was McKie suggested the interest being added. 11. When my legal advisers drew my attention to the technical point raised by his Honor Judge Williams, I could not do otherwise than to leave the matter in their hands, but Mr Geo. Harper can testify that my own feelings were that the case should go to the jury. I subjoin their reasons for asking a nonsuit: — Christchurch. Sept. 18th, 1877. Donald Campbell, Esq., M.D., Christchurch. Dear Sir,—Yourself v. McConnell and another—You have requested us as your counsel on the trial of the above case to infdrm you again and in writing why we advised you to elect to take a nonsuit, instead of letting the case proceed in the ordinary course. You will recollect that at the close of the trial on the first day, his Honor Mr Justice Williams called our attention to the evidence given by yourself as to the actual. words used by McKie in giving you the deposit receipt for the £SOO and cheque for the same amount, pointing out at the same time that the words were capable of the construction that McKie intended you to act as his agent in taking the deposit receipt to the Bank to constitute a fund for payment of the cheque. The cheque itself being the subject of the donation. We advised you that if the jury should find the facts relating to the donation to be as mentioned, you would not be able to obtain a decree thereafter in your favor. The above advice was given to you by us immediately after the adjournment on the first day, and yon consented to be guided entirely by us in the matter, and for these reasons we adopted a course which is the proper one in all actions where a plaintiff fails to make out his case, rather than let the case go to the jury. We are, dear sir, yours truly, (Signed) T. S. Dr/KCAN. (Signed) Geobge Haepeb. 12. I have now answered seriatim the points of the memorial, and in conclusion would respectfully draw your attention to the concluding remarks of the chairman —"He hoped, therefore, that each member would speak and act with calmness and thorough impartiality, leaning always to Mr Campbell's side, on all points where the slightest doubts existed." I submit, sir, that this advice was entirely forgotten ; certainly it was not followed, either in the memorial or in any of the subsequent proceedings. I feel a] so that my course was always a free and open one, and that my private and professional position in this colony is incompatible with the insinuations which are cast on me in the memorial. So far from shrinking from an inquiry, I am perfectly willing that any acts I have committed should be thoroughly investigated, if the Government deem it necessary, resting perfectly assured that justice will be done to both sides. The following is a copy of the report of the Commissioners: COMMISSIONEBS' BEPOBT. We purpose dealing with the allegations made by the petitioners in the order in which they appear in the memorial premising, however, that the charge now made against Mr Donald Campbell was as follows : " That he (Mr Campbell), during his attendance upon the late Robert Mackay was guilty of improper and unprofessional conduct, which has lowered the status of the profession in the community, and which has rendered it quite impossible that we should continue as his colleagues on the Hospital staff." It will be seen, therefore, that the petitioners relied upon establishing the above charge by proving the truth of the statements contained in their memorial to the Government, and which were embodied in the commission numbered from 1 to 12. Allegations. Commissioneks' ReNo. 1. That Mr Donald POKT. Campbell was in attend- The fact of having been ancc upon Mr R. Mackay paid .022 for medical serfor some time previous vicesreuderedtheliiteß. to his death, and that Mackay was admitted by his charges for medical Mr Donald Campbell, services amounted to but is a fact not material £22. to the matter in issue, and therefore calls for no comment. No. 2. That Mr K. The late Mr R. MacMackay was under Mr kay was certainly lodgDonald Campbell's care ing in a boarding house at a boarding bouse kept kept by Miss Patrick, an by Miss Patrick, a great acquaintance of Mr friend of Mr D. Camp- Campbell's, but it seems bell's family. That Mr that it was not only a It. Mackay informed his very suitable place for a friends that be was dis- man in Mr Mackay'scirsatisfied with Mr IX cunistauces to lodge at, Campbell's treatment, but that he went there and wished to be re- entirely of his own acmoved. That during the cord on this ocasion. The live days prior to his fact of Mackay being deatli Mr R. Mackny's dissatisiied with Mr personal and intimate Campbell's treatment is friends were invariably not established to our refused admission, and satisfaction, and the rethat one of these friends fusal to admit Mr Macwas admitted on the day kay's friends into his previous to his death room appears to have only under the threat of been a precaution any bringing another doctor, medical man in attendMr D. Campbell remain- auce upon a patient in ing in the room during Mr Macfciy's state was the interview, and for- perfectly justified in bidding him to speak to taking. The statement the patient. that one friend was admitted only on a threat that he would call in another medical man is not borne out by the evidence.

COLOMBO STREET SOUTH, MARCH 8, ISTB

No. 3. That according This allegation is to the evidence on both proved, as far as regards sides Mr R. Mackay, on Mr Mackay being subject Saturday, the day before to delusions of a temhis death, was subject to porary character the day grave delusions, indica- before his death, ting either temporary or permanent mental aberration. No. 4. That on the Proved. The remarks same clay Mr D. Camp- made as to the allegabell obtained possession tion No. 5 are applicable of papers of the value of to the later portion of £550, and of the cheque this allegation, professedly signed by Mr E. Mackay, covering the value of those papers. No. 5. That when the Proved. Having comthe cheque was pre- pared the signature to sented for payment at the cheque with other the proper Bank, the acknowledged signatures officers of the Bank re- of the late Mr Mackay, fnsed payment, and we have no hesitation in wrote across the cheqne stating that the signa- " Signature unlike." ture to the cheque in question was undoubtedly that of Mackay, and the difference between it and his usual signature is easily accounted for when the state of Mackay's health is taken into consideration. No. 6. That the soli- Admitted by Mr Campcitor of the executors bell. This matter does advised them to resist not call for any remark, payment of the cheque, as it is not material to hence arose the action the charge, at the suit of Mr D. Campbell. No. 7. That Mr Eobt. The evidence shows Mackay at the time of that the late Mr B. his admission to Miss Mackay was a man of inPatrick's boarding house temperate habits, but had been drinking heav- not that he had been ily, was snffering from drinking heavily, or was the effects of drink, and suffering from the effects bordering on delirium of drink at the time of tremens, while Mr D. his last admission to Campbell professed in Miss Patrick's house, his evidence, although he had attended him for three years, not to be aware of Mr R. Mackay's intemperate habits and made the extraordinary statement "I do not think if I attended a man professionally I could recognise whether be was a sober or a dissipated man." No. 8. That Mr D. Proved. Campbell failed to inform Mr Bell Hay, whom he called in consultation, the fact of Mr R. Mackay's having been delirious while Miss Patrick, Mr D. Campbell's own witness, gives the strongest evidence on the point. No. 9. That Mr D. Not proved. Mr CampCampbell appears to bell informed Mr John have informed no one of Anderson of the circnmthe existence of the stances on Saturday valuable papers and the night prior to Mr Maccheque already referred kay's death on Sunday to until after Mr R. morning. Macka v's death No. 10. That' Mr D. Admitted by Mr D. Campbell asserted that Campbell. Mr R. Mackay counted the interest on the deposit receipt, and made it npon the back of the deposit receipt "that there was £5 12s 6d interest due on the £SOO, and he added that to the cheqne," whila Mr D. Campbell afterwards admitted, in cross-exami-nation, that the figures were his own, and that he himself assisted in making up the calculation of the interest. No. 11. That the re- Proved. It appears suit of one day's exami- from the evidence that, nation into the case in in accepting a nonsuit, Court bringing out the Mr Campbell was simply facts above stated, was acting under the advice to lead Mr D. Campbell's of his solicitors. And legal advisers to accept the grounds upon which a nonsuit, with the de- the nonsuit was accepted clared intention of not will be found fully exresuming the case. plained in the newspaper reports of the trial, Campbell v Todd and Another, Mackay's trustees, attached thereto, and in the evidence of Mr George Harper, given before us. No. 12. That there was Mr Campbell admits no witnesses to prove therewere.no witnesses the signature of the present when the cheqne cheque by Mr E. Mac- was signed, and we conkn.y, a delirious man, sider that the evidence within a few hours of clearly establishes the his death. fact that, on the day in question, the late Mr R. Mackay was subject to frequent attacks of delirium. Having stated our opinion as to the truth of the allegations made against Mr Campbell, it now becomes our duty to state whether the general charge made by the petitioners has been substantiated or not, and we regret to say that we consider it has, and that " Mr Campbell, during his professional attendance upon the late Robert Mackay was guilty of improper and unprofessional conduct, calculated to lower the status of the medical profession." We have the honor to be, your Excellency's most obedient servants, (Signed) Caleb Whitefooed, Chairman. Fhed. W. A. Skae, ConimisEdwd, L. Lee, ) sioners. Of improper and unprofessional conduct I have thus been declared guilty. Now, if by this verdict the saddle has been put on the right horse, most certain it is that the same process should be extended, as there are other seven horses to saddle. If my accusers have succeeded in proving me guilty of improper and unprofessional conduct, the means by which they have done it have been not only improper and unprofessional, but of the meanest and most dishonorable kind ; and this though they have been warmly thanked by Colonel Whitmore. If I fail to make good this charge I am ready to bear the consequence in the community in which I reside. First. —The letter and memorial. No one can read the allegations without seeing that there are made against me imputations of moral delinquency of the deepest dyemoral principle cast to the winds in a deliberate scheme to extort money from a dying man. I am represented as sending McKie to a house that would suit my purpose; as keeping him there though he was dissatisfied with me and desired removal; as excluding his friends lest they should interrupt my scheme; as admitting one of them only under the threat of another medical man being sent for; as pretending not to know that he was suffering from the effects of drink; as receiving the cheque from him while he was delirious; as concealing from everyone the fact that I had got the cheque, and, as -if afraid of further disclosure, withdrawing the case from Court after one day's examination ; and it is suggested even that it is possible that I, and not McKie, signed the cheque. In corroboration of these things an article appeared in the " North Canterbury News " in which, among other bitter sentences, was this one—" Apparently for the purpose of isolating his patient from the influence of any agency that might be inimical to his own interests, Mr Campbell had his patient removed to a boarding house conducted by a Miss Patrick, an intimate friend of Mr Campbell's." Either this article was written, or the information supplied, by one or more of the seven, for the memoi'ial had just been sent to Wellington, and yet there were points in the article taken from the memorial—points that had not been brought out at the trial in Court. Moreover, Dr. Frankish, secretary to the seven, carried that newspaper about with him, and read it in one of my patients' houses; and in another in which I was attending a patient it was found in the house after Dr. Frankish had left from visiting a patient of his own. That my accusers meant to convict me before the Government, and the public of deliberate dishonesty and fraud will not be doubted. Well, what is the verdict of the commissioners as to this grave moral delinquency ? Setting aside the question of delirium (on which I shall remark by-and-bye) the decision is, that I did not send

McKie to that house at all, but that he went of his own accord, and that it was very suitable for the case; that the exclusion of friends was a perfectly justifiable precaution to be taken by any medical man in the circumstances ; that the admission of one because of a threat, and McKie's dissatisfaction with me and desire for removal are assertions not established ; that he had not been drinking heavily, and was not suffering from the effects of drink at the time; that I did not conceal from every one the fact that I had got the cheque and the papers ; that the case had been withdrawn simply on a legal point; and that the cheque had been signed, beyond all doubt, by McKie himself. Thus in the judgment of the Commission, not one of these grave charges was made good ; while the most serious of them were proved to be the very reverse of fact. What I ask therefore is—Was it prope • %nd professional to accuse a brother practitioner of such things as these when they were false, and to use them for the purpose of getting him removed from a public institution? and was it proper and professional after the falseness was proved to express not a word of regret for the unfair position before the Government and the public in which they had placed him ? Tested by the rules which control men in every walk and sphere of life—apart altogether from what professions may require—there can be but this opinion, that such procedure was most unjust and dishonourable, and fitted materially to lower the " status " of any body of men that can be guilty of it. Second—The manner in which the letter and the memorial were got up and sent to Wellington, All the steps taken by my accusers were taken unknown to me. To the meeting of the Hospital staff at which action was taken, I was not invited; nor was another member who was known to be my friend. I did not know what had been done till the papers had been for some time before the Government; and I discovered it only by accident. Not only so, but when I wrote to the seven, asking if what I had heard was true, all, with one exception, gave me no reply. In addition to this secresy began and maintained, there is a fact which I ask to be specially observed. It is that the request made to the Government was not for an enquiry, but for the " grave consideration and active interference of the Government, as no practitioner, in regard to whom such conduct Juts been proved, ought to continue on the staff of a public institution." Had tlte petitioners got their desire, my dismissal would have taken place at once, and on the assumption that the statements they had made were correct. Now, though all they had said had been true, was it not demanded by righteousness and honor that I should have been made aware of what they intended to do or had done; and not kept in the dark deliberately and as long as they could, in the hope that their object might be attained before I could know of it ? But if this secresy would have been wrong, even though all had been true, what shall we say of it in connection with gross untruth ? Is it a proper and professional thing, thus to stab a brother in the dark ? In the name of the sacred number "seven,"l ask it. High up on the pedestal of professional purity, these men have placed themselves for the admiration of the community; and is this to be understood as one of the elements of it ? It may be proper and professional in the estimation of these medical men, but I am sure everyone outside the profession will say it is a sad violation of that fair play to which by universal consent every man is entitled. Third.—The backing up of the letter and memorial. To effect the desired result at Wellington, a letter was written by Dr. Nedwill —one of the seven—in which he charged me with a serious offence, as medical attendant at Addington Gaol. This letter was sent up to Dr. Turnbull —another of the seven—who was then in Wellington, burdened with the credit of the profession. Though marked private, the letter was read by Dr. Turnbull to gentlemen at the club; to one of whom permission was given by Dr. Turnbull to make what use of it he pleased. It was then produced at the Legislative Council by the Hon. Mr Robinson, who was stopped in the reading of it because of ladies being in the gallery, and who at a subsequent time made remarks in the strongest terms in support of the charge. Though I went to Wellington for the purpose of seeing this letter it escaped me, it having mysteriously disappeared from the Colonial office; and it was only after strenuous exertions that the known contents of the letter were put into the matters to be examined into by the Commission. To what then was I entitled from Dr. Nedwill ? Certainly that he would meet me face to face, and make good the charge. Did he do this ? No. On being asked by the Commissioners on the subject, all he said was "I have no charge to make against Dr. Campbell in regard to Addington Gaol." And though these two men knew the injury they had done me, not only in Wellington, but throughout the colony, not a word of regret did they utter. No charge ! As if injury to my name and injustice foully inflicted on me were of no consequence whatever. We have gone in to blacken him, and let the dirt stick. I shall not be guilty of such mockery as to ask if this was proper and professional. The letter was meant to do its work in support of the memorial —to do its work under cover of being private, and nobly did Dr. Turnbull effect it, beginning at the club and securing a finish in the highest house in the colony. What steps I may take for satisfaction for such a gross outrage rests with myself; but meanwhile what I ask of the public is this—if that charge was true, was it not the duty of Drs. Nedwill and Turnbull, for the honor of the profession for which they are so jealous, and the sake of suffering humanity, of which they profess themselves the champions, to bring it home to me ? I gave them every opportunity to do it; I challenged them to do it; should they not have done it ? Aye more, would they not have done it if they could ? Yes ; but Dr. Turnbull meanwhile had discovered that the cases said to be known to the police, about which his tongue, tipped with venom, had prated so glibly, had vanished into thin air. But if so, was I not entitled to a statement to that effect ? Perhaps it was not the duty of the Commissioners to insist on the charge which had been sent to Wellington by Dr. Nedwill, and industriously circulated by Dr. Turnbull, being made good or withdrawn ; but if so, they were a couple of cowards to take advantage of it; and not only were they far from proving themselves fine models of the proper and professional, but they failed miserably in their duty to the public in regard to this same Addington Gaol. In the Legislative Council the Hon. Mr Fraser said that I had been treacherously dealt with by these two medical men. This was his estimate of it before the inglorious finish at Christchurch ; and I hesitate not to pronounce the whole transaction from first to last as not only improper and unprofessional, but as conduct of the basest sort. Fourth. When some of the "seven" men constitute themselves censors they should be sure that their own hands are clean ; for if not so their action becomes downright presumption and unblushing hypocrisy, and they thereby render themselves justly open to the same attack, and by the same weapons as their own. This necessary precaution has been somewhat neglected in the present case. Here is an instance of how Dr. Deamer has maintained the credit of the profession:— [Copy.] Christchurch Medical Provident Society. This society is established for the purpose of providing medical attendance and medicine for the working classes of Christchurch and neighborhood, at a reasonable charge, by weekly payments.

rPJNTRt»2ATgTHE OFFICE OF THE "PRESS" COMPANY, LIMITED, CASHEL STREET, CHPJSTCHUKCH.

Terms— Within Town Belt: Adults 6d. per week. Children, under 12 years 3d. per week. Payable one month in advance. Not exceeding two miles from belt: — Adults 9d per week. Children, as above ... 4Jd per week. Payable one month in advance. Midwifery to members, within belt, 30s ; not exceeding two miles, 425; if paid one month before expected time. (Signed) Wm, Deameb, M.D., Medical Officer. Armagh street, Christchurch. This advertisement was given me sometime ago by Dr. Deamer's friend, Dr. Nedwill, as a fine specimen of the profession in Christchurch. This was a society that never existed, and the ridicule the advertisement brought down on his head prevented anything more ever being heard of it. And this was one of the seven that met in solemn conclave to guard the purity, the integrity, and the honor of the profession. It was my intention to have alluded here to matters of a different type from that; but, on reflection, I forbear. Only of this I speak. A writer in a leading article in the " Lyttelton Times " the other day, said that Dr. Campbell seemed to tbink that because he had kept within the law all was right. Was the writer describing his own experience ? With regard to [Dr. Turnbull (who is well known to be connected with the staff of the "Times") I simply ask —can he calmly review his own life and satisfy himself that there are not things in it which, though within the limits of the law, utterly unfit him for taking the position of censor of my conduct ? " Physician, heal thyself!" I come now to speak of the question of delirium. Before doing so I ask that this fact may be noted, namely, that this is the only j point in the allegations which the report of I the Commissioners has left standing. AlleI gations Nos. 1 and 6 are said to be of no account; on Nos. 2,4, and 5, I am vindicated ; Nos. 7 and 9 are flatly contradicted ; No. 10 is admitted by me; in No. 11 the memorialists are put right regarding the reason for the withdrawal of the case; and there are left Nos. 3,8, and 12, which allude to delirium. And this other fact also I ask to be noticed, namely, that the position in regard to delirium taken up by the memorialists is not borne out by the Commissioners. The statement of the memorialists is that I got a cheque from a delirious man; while the statement of the Commissioners is that on the day in question McKie was subject to frequent attacks of delirium, and that his delusions were of a temporary character. The charge, therefore, proved against me in the judgment of the Commissioners is that I got the cheque from McKie on a day on which he was subject to frequent temporary attacks of delirium. Now, in regard to this, I have these remarks to make. First—lt rests on the evidence of the Nurse, Miss Patrick, and the lawyer, Mr O'Neil. In regard to the testimony of the Nurse, nothing is better known than that a person in extreme weakness, waking up out of sleep or a sleepy condition, is for some time incoherent and wandering. And it is to be remembered that Miss Patrick declared in Court, " McKie was not out of his mind on Saturday," the day in question. In regard to Mr O'Neil, while he said that McKie was excited, and mistook a coat for a man, and that he had to wait before he executed the codicil, he added, " But his mind was perfectly clear." Second —It is quite possible that I may have made a mistake in regard to this delirium. Lately, Drs. Powell and Nedwill—two of the seven—pronounced one of my patients insane, and sent him to the Lunatic Asylum; while Dr. Hay, who made the post mortem examination on the body of the poor sufferer two days | afterwards, gave the verdict of death from ; typhoid fever. If two such experienced men I made such a terrible blunder in one direci tion, it is quite possible that a humble indi- ; vidual like myself may have made this in- | finitely less blunder in the opposite direction. | Third —The testimony of Dr. Hay as to : sanity when he saw him on that day and the | day previous is explicit. I confess that the I part Dr. Hay has acted in the case damages materially the worth of his testimony on this ! or any other point. For instance, in the i Court he swore that McKie was sensible when ■ he saw him ; at the Commission he was asked j if he had said anything since the trial different from the opinion then expressed, and he said No; while in the interval he had I signed the memorial, in which it is said that ' on that day McKie had either temporary or peri manent mental aberration, and that I had got a cheque from a delirious man. Then, at the Commission he stated on oath that he understood Dr. Campbell to have said to him that he got the cheque about eleven or twelve on the sth ; while subsequently he stated on oath that Dr. Campbell did not say to him the day or the hour on which it was given—a contradiction on oath which was remarked upon by the President of the Commissioners. Dr. Hay swore that I did not tell him about McKie having been delirious ; and I was not prepared in Court, nor am I prepared now to swear that I did. I accept his statement as he made it; and I give his evidence as to the sanity of McKie for what it is worth. Here it is :—" He was sensible at the time I saw him." " It is not usual for patients in that state of the disease to suffer from delusions. A defective circulation would produce congestion of the brain, but not sufficiently as'to affect the intellect. It is not common to see delirium in that stage of heart disease, but it does occur, mostly in the acute stages." "There were no traces of any other malady than those affecting the heart and lungs." Fourth —Within an hour previous to my getting the papers from McKie he performed an act which, by law, requires perfect sanity —he executed a codicil to his will. Was anything proved to have taken place between j 12, the hour of the will, and 1, the hour j of the cheque ?■ Nothing. Was anything | adduced to show that at 1 he was in a mental I condition different from what he was in at j 12 ? Nothing. If then he has been rej garded as sane in the one case, by all the | rules of logic and fair play he must (without ; opposing evidence) be regarded as- having I been sane in the other. And yet my accusers ! said to the Government, and they have said to the world that I got a cheque from a dej lirious man! And what is a strange coincidence is this—the legal firm that executed the will is the very same legal firm that appeared against me in Court and that so persistently harped about this delirium ! Has the validity I of the will ever been disputed on the ground j of delirium ? Buppose it were would it | not be resisted ? And would not the i evidence adduced in the resistance be the very same evidence that I adduced ? It ; would, for there is no other. And thus in the one case evidence would be taken to prove i sanity, and that quite satisfactorily; and in ! the other case the same evidence is taken to prove delirium, and this too equally satisfac- ! torily! This is with a vengeance—" The j case being altered alters the case." Fifth. —At the period at which McKie is | acknowledged to have been quite clear and j correct, it was his purpose to give me a cheque j for £SOO. On this one fact alone I am willj ing to rest the whole question of delirium, i In his evidence in Court Mr O'Neill said— I " Mackay did not mention Dr. Campbell's ! name with respect to a gift he intended to ! make to him. He did not lead me to believe j that there was anything else unsettled as re- ' garded his temporal affairs." All correct ; I but it is a fact for all that that there was : something else unsettled as regarded liis tem- '. poral affairs, and that there was a gift he in-

tended to make to Dr. Campbell: There was the sum of £SOO lying in the Bank, and about which there was no direction in the will. What then are we to believe wae his purpose in regard to that Bum ? Are we to think that he meant it to lie in the Bank, and that it was to go to no one ? That will not be asserted. The only thing that we can believe, for there is not the slightest clue to lead to any other supposition, is that he purposed to do just what he did. On the Monday previous he told Miss Patrick that he intended to give a present to Dr. Campbell, at twelve o'clock on the Saturday he deliberately kept out of the final settlement in his will "the sum of £SOO, at one o'clock he gave me a cheque for that amount, ana papers to make it all the more secure; and afterwards he conversed both with Miss Patrick and myself about what he had done. It cannot be disputed that at twelve o'clock it was his purpose to give me the five hundred pounds, but at twelve o'clock it is acknowledged that he was clear and correct in mind ; therefore it is a fact that in M'Ee fully and deliberately purposed to make a present to me of that amount. If I can be dislodged from this position I am quite willing that it should be done. What then becomes of this question of delirium, the only point that was left in the allegations. I think it will be admitted by all who read these remarks that the commissioners have done me but scant justice. It is true that they did not confirm the statement of my accusers ; and I take their own verdict as thej have given itj but while they said that M'Kie was subject to temporarydelirium on thafc day ought they not in justice to me and in'guarding their own verdict frosi misapprehension, to have stated that one hour before I got the cheque, McKie was considered sane enough to execute a will; and that there is no evidence of there having been any change in hie mental condition when he signed the cheque. But my object in writing has not been directly to remark on the decision of the Commissioners; but to show that, while I have been pronounced guilty of improper and unprofessional conduct, those who have been my accusers have adopted means that have been a gross violation of truth, justice, and honour; and it is for the public to judge whether or not I have made out my case. I have now to perform the disagreeable task of alluding to the real motive which hae influenced my accusers, namely, professional jealousy. Not about the honor of thejprofession,, or the interests of the Hospital, or the public good have they been so much concerned, notwithstanding all their pretensions', as about their practice. Recently, when the Government proposed that the Hospital should be handed over to private contributors, and managed by a Committee, that Dr. Nedwill suggested that the staff should resign} because an objectionable man (he mentioned Dr. Townend) might secure a position on the staff by expending a sum of money in obtaining a number of subscribers' votes—an enlarged view of the interests of the Hospital, through spectacle* taken from-Dr. NedwilTs owe pocket. Again» when the late Provincial Government asked the staff to recommend a house st;rgeon for appointment, Drs. Doyle arc Deamer thought that he ahould be prevented from practising in Christchurch for a certain number of years after resigning—a proposal which not only showed a lamentable want of confidence in themselves as medical practitioners in the city, but which, if carried out, weald have brought forward inferior men for the position, and thus have seriously impaired the efficiency of the institution. This feeling in its manifestationa against myself I have had abundant means of detecting. I can trace it not only to a recent period, when Dr. Turnbul! and company went to our late Superintendent and threatened to resign (their unfailing game), because I, and not Dr. Nedwfll, had bees asked to take temporary charge of Dr. Parkerson's cases when he was sick—a threatened catastrophe which, was prevented, not by Mr Eolleston's succumbing, but by me, for the sake of peace, declining to act. I can trace it back to the time of my coming to Christchurch, when a desire on my part to see the surgical practice in the Hospital, made me visifc that institution during an operation by Dr. Turnbull, when I found that not only were the principle entrances to the operatingroom locked, but, after pro -ring admission by a side door, I found myself unrecognised by my medical brethrer.; proceedings on their part which was by tne Provincial Council. I can also trace it back to a. period even before I had come to Christchurch. When I was practising in Lyttelton, I made arrangements, at the request of Messrs Cook and Roes, for the use of a consulting-room in their establishment. After this arrangement had gone on satisfactorily for a few months, I received a communication from this firm, stating that owing to the action of certain medical men they dare not allow me the use of their room any longer. I need hardly say that Dr. Turnbull sends his prescriptions to get dispensed by Messrs Cook and Ross. It lathis feeling of professional jealousy, which, like a vulture pouncing on its prey, seized so gladly my position in the McKie case; and to conceal its own meanness it assumed the commendable and beautiful form of a high regard for the honour of the profession, and a deep anxiety for the good of an institution of such great importance to suffering humanity as the Christchurch Hospital. Seven angels of light! In finishing, it may not be deemed improperly egotistical to refer,in a sentence or two, to those services to the Hospital, which were alluded to in the Legislative Council by the Hon. Mr. Buckley. The period to which he referred wae when typhoid fever was raging here, and the Resident Surgeon had died of the malady. When no one else could be got in the emergency, I undertook the charge of the Hospital. In the discharge of these duties I caught the fever, and was laid down for six weeks. In recognition for my services and for a report on the state of the Hospital which I drew up at the request of the Provincial Grovernment, I received a letter of thanks and the gift of fifty guineas. In the discharge of my duties as visiting physician and surgeon since then, I think it cannot be shown that I have failed in. any degree ; and when misconduct in my private practice- was attributed to me, it was the duty of my brethren on the staff to have had a meeting with me ; to have heard my statements and explanations, and then to have been guided by the judgment they formed, whether that had been favorable or otherwise to me. In tbeProudfootcasein Dunedin the part that Dr. Murphy had acted was severely condemned by the presiding judge. The membersof thejmedical society, with which Dr. Murphy is connected, met with him, and after hearing his explanations, and his acknowledgment of error, in so far as he had been guilty of error, declared themselves satisfied, and acted towards him accordingly. That was just, honorable, pi-oper, and professional. What a. contrast to my medical brethren calling a meeting from which I was excluded ; taking steps to get me at once removed from the staff, and sending up to the Government for the purpose, a document which has been proved to be full of inisrepre sentations and untruth; and all with a secresy carefully guarded and maintained. Poor, indeed, must be the " status " of the profession among us when it has to be bolstered up by such means ! That I acted unwisely in taking the cheque and paper*from McKie at all, I have already admitted • but that I was guilty, in any shape or form' of framing and carrying out a scheme o deception and dishonesty, as my accusers have represented, is what I indignantly repudiate, and the grounds of the repudiation I have now placed before the public.

Yours, &c., D. CAMPBELL.