The Globe. SATURDAY, MAY 17, 1879.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1635, 17 May 1879, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, MAY 17, 1879.

It is nothing new to say that the body medical in Christchurch is not a happy family. From time immemorial —speaking from a Provincial point of view, of course —the members of that useful, if troublesome profession, in Christchurch, have practically demonstrated the correctness of the old adage which refers to professional men seldom agreeing among themselves. The late disturbance between certain sections of the genus meiJicum, in connection with the handling of hospital matters, has scarcely stirred the public mind to any unusual degree. For years past these “ doctors quarrels” have become town talk, and to a great extent have tired public patience, which, in our city, is not easily disturbed. What has happened between the District Coroner, Dr. Coward, and Dr. Chilton, the Resident Surgeon of the Hospital, in reference to the inquest lately held on the body of Daniel Breen, has not probably taken anyone by surprise. The imbroglio is now before the public, the proceedings of the Charitable Aid Board, which now controls the Hospital, having developed various phases of this official misunderstanding, not to call it by a more expressive term. Wo do not intend to review this additional feature to Hospital management at any length. The whole thing to oi;r mind lies in a nut shell As is generally the case in matters of the kind, there is a good deal to bo said on both sides, and blame may fairly bo urged to lie at the door of either party engaged in the controversy. The Christchurch Coroner, it is a notorious fact, is not perhaps eminently gifted with official qualifications such as would endear him to lovers of red-tape. The contrary is certainly the case, if the public records are to be trusted, and his past official acts interpreted in a strictly legal sense. Dr. Coward, while discharging his official duties in the past, has no doubt, as our American cousins put it, “ meant well; ” but the exigencies of the times are no longer satisfied with happy-go-lucky officialism, the exorcise of which might bo based upon expediency, a judicial rule of thumb, or possibly “ the state of one’s liver.” We are not desirous for one moment of excusing the somewhat hasty —if not undepartmontally gushing tone —which the Resident Surgeon of the Hospital has thought proper to assume when dealing with what ho may have honestly believed wore the merits of his grievance. The correspondence which emanated from Dr. Chilton, and which ho sent to various quarters, may bo considered in doubtful taste and scarcely directed into either the proper channels, or reasoned with sufficiently matured judgment. We feel that that official has erred in tact, and has somewhat lacked discretion in rushing into print so carelessly. We quite agree with the Charitable Aid Board that Dr. Chilton ought not to have so vigorously trailed the tails of his coat over the green, without having first communicated with those in whose hands the departmental control, so to speak, of the Hospital is placed. As a servant of a public institution, the technical management of which is vestod by the Government in the hands of a Board, it must bo beyond dispute that his duty, when finding fault with any official encroachment upon the responsibilities placed on him by the Board, should have been to have first made the Board acquainted with the facts, with a view of any claims that ho might have for redress,

passing through tlioir hands. Tliis, Dr. Chilton, through ignorance of official discipline, or perhaps acting under too strong an impulse, appears to have neglected to do. That the Board wore justified in marking in some way their sense of this Incite on his part will not ho controverted. Further hlamo than this can scarcely ho laid on his shoulders. There is another question, however, and a far more important one, namely, how far public interests are protected by the half-measured, mealy-mouthed —and perhaps to a certain extent —one-sided way in which the Board,', dealt with the case. The Board placed it on record as their opinion that in removing the body of a patient who had died in the Hospital under circumstances which are now well known, “ the Coroner acted within the law, although they were not aware of any precedent for his action.” This is certainly a peculiar verdict, totally unwarranted by the nature of the appeal for protection made to them by their subordinate, the Resident Surgeon, and furthermore ridiculous in more ways than one. The law, wo take it, is written for the purpose of being carried out by those whom it legally empowers to see its dicta carried out. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the Charitable Aid Board is a tribunal legally competent —or otherwise —to discuss and settle points of law, wo are told in the same breath, by implication, that although legal, the action of the Coroner “ was unprecedented.” The illogical subtlety of this wonderful criticism upon an official’s actions, which, it is averred the law fully sanctions, is more difficult to grasp than that of a popular conundrum. Certainly the decision of the Board, assisted as it was by the evidently prejudiced arguments of the leading member of the late recalcitrant staff: of the Hospital, will be accepted by the public “ with a considerable dose of salt.” Dr. Turnbull has shown so great a personal bias in Hospital matters since his advent to the Board-room that his usefulness as a member of that half-flodged institution has boon absolutely nullified. Throughout the debates of the Board on this latest development of the Hospital storm-in-a-toapot, Dr. Turnbull has practically demonstrated the fallacy of the maxim “ that language was given to man to disguise his thoughts ” —or perhaps we should say, his designs. The late meeting of the Board was a thin one, both in quantity and quality, and hence a rare opportunity, not to bo despised, was offered to the champion of the late Hospital staff wherewith he might make another onslaught—indirectly though it were —upon “the other side.” As to the Coroner’s law in ordering the removal of Daniel Breen’s body, it was unwarrantable and illegal, the opinion of the Charitable Aid Board notwithstanding. Besides the Coroners Act of 1864, which guides the proceedings of coroners in New Zealand, there are legal precedents also, which, fortunately, supplement the meagre and unsatisfactory provisions of the statute in question. It is especially enjoined that coroners shall not order the removal of dead bodies unless under specified circumstances. The Act of 1864, copied from the English law, enjoins that when such removal bo doomed necessary, the body shall be taken to and the inquest held “at the nearest public-house.” Judge Johnston’s text-book on Coroner’s law, a work issued by the Government some years ago for the guidance of Coroners or their deputies, explains the reason why the law has enacted such provision. In case of post-mortem examination being necessary, it is evident that the less the body is handled the more correctly medical evidence will bo obtained when the autopsy is made, and less doubt thrown upon such “ticklish” testimony. The Act absolutely provides for payment being made to licensees of public-houses when they receive remains previous to an inquest. In the case of Breen, the Coroner had not the slightest scintilla of reason —officially speaking, of course — for acting as he did. The law does not recognise the right of private parties interfering, as it was stated was the case when Dr. Coward ordered in so inexplicable a manner the removal in question from the Hospital. This is not, unfortunately, the first time that Dr. Coward has given a new aspect to the already too varied interpretations put upon Coroners’ duties. It is not long ago that ho hold «an inquest upon the body of a child upon whom ho had been in professional attendance previous to its death. The jury being sworn, the Coroner called the only evidence ho had to produce—his own —which ho actually gave before his own empty chair. Those proceedings were, indeed, of a summary and singularly simple character, and, in the language of the Charitable Aid Board, “if within the law, without precedent.” Whatever may be thought of the general system of post-mortem inquiries the Coroners’ Courts —which at present obtains, wo must confess that the oi ratio manner in which proceedings are oftentimes conducted go far towards bringing the institution into public contempt.