The Globe. MONDAY. JUNE 24, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1360, 24 June 1878, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY. JUNE 24, 1878.

A case camo under tbo notice of the Board of Health at its last sitting which shows the necessity that exists for a rigid enforcement of the law with regard to giving notice of infectious diseases. The case to which wo allude was one of very aggravated character, inasmuch as four cases of typhoid fever had taken place in the one family. None of these were re ported to the Board, as directed by the Act, and it was only through one case in the same family going to the Hospital and being reported from thence that the Medical Officer of Health became aware of the existence of the disease. Hero was a hot bod of infection remaining in the midst of a closely-built locality, which might have been the means of spreading disease and death throughout the entire neighbourhood. No wonder, therefore, that the clause of the Act making the householder liable to a penalty is so strict in its provisions. The defect in the Act

as revealed in this case is that there is no penalty for the medical adviser who omits to tell the householder of the infections nature of the disease. In the case under notice the medical attendant did not do so, hut the Act provides no machinery whereby it may ho made compulsory on him to inform the householder. It says that he shall do so, hut it does not provide the moans for compelling the unwilling or negligent. It is obvious that unless the householder is informed or is otherwise aware that tho disease is infectious ho cannot comply with tho Act, as regards tho notice to bo given to the Board of Health. Further than this the danger in thickly populated neighborhoods from the existence therein of highly infectious diseases cannot be over-esti-mated. They may bo of a character which recpiiro isolation of tho patient to prevent their spreading. Yot through ignorance of their character the neighbors may have daily intercourse with tho sick person, thus unconsciously being tho means of spreading infection throughout the entire locality. As wo have pointed out, there seems to be some provision needed to include the medical attendants under the penal clauses if they omit or neglect to give tho householder tho earliest possible intimation of the presence of infectious disease in the family. If any ease similar to that before the Board is again reported, it is to be hoped that they will take means to enforce the penalty strictly as a warning to others.

Thk recent decision of the Resident Magistrate in the case of the election of City Auditors, affords the ratepayers another opportunity of exercising their franchise, and it may be. reconsidering their verdict on the last occasion. It is to be hoped that they will so record their votes as to return two gentlemen to the position who will be a credit to the city, and that a little more interest will be infused into the election than was the case on the last occasion. The proceedings which have been taken may have this result, and if they also end in a satisfactory choice being made by the citizens, then the trouble of a second election will not be in vain. It may bo noticed that the Lyttelton Times had an article on Saturday with respect to this subject. Our contemporary hardly appears to have sufficiently studied it, or having done so entirely misapprehended the whole point of the case. It asserts there is no doubt that all the papers destroyed were the same as those left in the boxes, “ unless,” it goes on to add, “it can be proved that all holders of plural voting papers are idiots.” The idiocy or non-idiocy of the voters may bo a question with our contemporary. We are not quite so sure, however, that the proposition put by him is so absolutely a fact as he wishes to make out. To put a case. A voter who is entitled to four votes receives four voting papers. Three of these votes he gives to Mr. Craig say, one to Mr. Alport. The Returning Officer at the close of the poll removes three papers. It may be that he takes all the votes given for Mr, Craig, or two of his and the one given for Mr. Alport. In either case the election is affected, inasmuch as one or other of jtho candidates loses a vote given to him. There is no evidence of idiocy in a voter using his votes as we have described, nor does it seem quite so certain as the Times appears to think it that all the plural papers were given for the same candidates. It is amusing to see the way in which the Times disposes of the arguments against the theory it advances. The assertion as to the plural papers necessarily being for the same candidates is a mere conjecture. We have already shown, by putting a hypothetical case, that it is quite within the bounds of possibility that a voter might have used his plural voting papers so as to vote for different candidates, or a portion of them, and yet not be considered an idiot. Our contemporary says that there can be “no doubt” of a state of things which both the counsel for the defence and the Resident Magistrate wore decidedly of opinion was only a matter of conjecture. If there had been “ no doubt ” the decision of the Magistrate might have been diametrically opposite to what it was, as the judgment was given upon this very point. The reason given by the Magistrate for declaring the election void was that there was a doubt whether the whole of the plural papers had been recorded for the same candidates. The action of the Returning Officer in destroying the papers precluded evidence being given which would have left no doubt as to the way in which the votes were recorded. Hence the Magistrate declared the election void. Wo should advise our contemporary to study a question a little more carefully before making so sweeping an assertion as that there can be “no doubt ” of anything being the case. The whole election has now to be gone over again, and wo trust the burgesses on this occasion will make a wise choice in the two men elected.