THE GLOBE. MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1881. OUR YELPING CONTEMPORARY.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2151, 17 January 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1881. OUR YELPING CONTEMPORARY.

It appears that we are never to hear the last of that doctors’ squabble. At least it would appear evident that one section of the medical fraternity, namely, the “ outs,” are determined to prolong the agony. An attempt is now being made to fight the battle o’er again, with the case of the late Mr Pearce for a test, and the ‘‘ disaffeckit ” have found a worthy instrument for their intrigue and manoeuvring in the Christchurch evening “ Star.” That paper has been pleased to darkly hint of some wanton neglect of a young man who died in the hospital from the effects of a bullet wound in his leg, and goes on to demand an explanation from the staff of the Hospital. The writer is pleased to remark that, “ of course we may be wrong,” in which permit us to heartily concur with him. Indeed, it would be very strange to discover the “ Star ” on the right side of anything, and so far as the present question is concerned the editor of that paper has certainly found a “ mare’s nest,” or rather it has been found for him by persons interested in blackening the Christchurch Hospital and the Medical Staff thereof at any cost, or at any sacrifice whatsoever, of truth and honesty. The “ Star’s ” article is clumsily written though, at the best, and can scarcely lead anyone astray who possesses the least knowledge either of the facts of the case or the influences at work in such attempts to prolong a profitless and disgraceful controversy. The reference to the “ well known case of Garibaldi,” which, by the way is not, to laymen, a well-known ease whatever, at once stamps the article as having been instigated by some one or other of the medical gentlemen above referred to as the “ outs.” The editor of our contemporary has evidently been “ coached,” and may we add that he has been properly fooled into the bargain, since, from his own showing, the case mentioned is in no way analagous to that of Pearce. The pomposity of our contemporary is always amusing, but never more so than when it is simply repeating a well-learnt lesson, parrot-like in all but the fact that the stilted language and labored style is its own, Last Saturday’s article is a gem in this respect, and should perhaps bo passed by with a laugh, but, unfortunately, it may deceive a few of the class who will not take the trouble to judge for themselves, but accept as gospel truth the vaporings of any mouthing braggart, who may sing for their entertainment. Therefore, we have referred to the subject on behalf of those whose characters have been assailed. That there should be no ground for this attack on the Hospital Staff cannot be known to many who have read the “ Star’s ” leading article, and for justice sake the people should be informed what really gave rise to that attack. It was, indeed, simply the wretched party feeling between the doctors of Christchurch, which must be sincerely deplored by all right thinking

men. Wo are not constituted the champions of the other side, viz., the “ ins,” but this we can say, from a knowledge on the subject, that the young man Pearce received the best of surgical treatment, and all proper attention whilst in the Hospital, that the implied charge of neglect against the Medical Staff is utterly without foundation, and that, therefore, there was no earthly reason for the “ Star ” to cry out on behalf of its friends, simply because the editor, like Mr. Clements, “ Wants to know, you know.” It was an imbecile attempt to throw mud at the present Staff, and so transparent withal as to disclose the unworthy motives that prompted it, in every line.