KUMARA HOSPITAL

Kumara Times, Issue 2822, 7 October 1885, Page 2

KUMARA HOSPITAL

'THE DISMISSAL OF DR. MONCKTON. APPOINTMENT OF DR. DAVY. GOVERNMENT INQUIRY INTO ACTIONS OF COMMITTEE. REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS. To the Honourable the COLONIAL Secretary. Sir—We have the honour to submit our report upon the matters mentioned in your letter of the 10th July, ult., requesting us to hold au inquiry into the circumstances which attended the appointment of Dr. Monckton as Sur-geon-Superintendent of the Kumara Hospital, the termination of his engagement, and the appointment of his successor. After due notice to Dr. Monckton and the Hospital Committee, we commenced the inquiry on Friday, the 7th instant, at 7 o'clock p.m., after the conclusion of the Warden's Court. Our sittings occupied that evening and the whole of the following day, from 10 a.m. to 9 o'clock p.m. Notes of the evidence taken are forwarded herewith. We now proceed to give our opinion on the matters referied to us, with the exception of the circumstances attending the appointment of Dr. Monckton, concerning which nothing has been brought under our notice, nor has auy question ever been raised except as to the lega l interpretation of the agreement entered into with him, and that has already been made the subject of litigation. The sulject matter of our investigation as disclosed by the papers and evidence put before us seems to resolve itself into three divisions :—First, the dismissal of Dr. Monckton ; secondly, the maimer of conducting the election of the new Committee, in January; and, thirdly, the appointment of Dr. Davy, and the nature of his engagement. (1.) Dr. Monckton alleges that the I true cause of his dismissal was the!

private malice entertained against him by Mr Henry Burger, an active member of the Committee. The cause of this malice is alleged to be that Dr. Monckton struck off Mr Burger's name from the medical list of the Odd Fellows' Society, and Dr. Monckton goes on to assume that this step aroused the implacable hostility of Mr Burger, who afc last succeeded, by his efforts and influence with others, in prevailing so far upon the rest of the Committee that a majority of that body was ready to go all lengths in procuring the dismissal of the doctor, without any regard to right and justice. Of this extreme and apparently not very probable allegation strong proof ought to be adduced ; but of its truth we find no evidence whatever, and we see no reason for believing it. We have not any difficulty in forming an opinion upon the true cause of the undoubtedly strong feeling of hostility which the majority of the Committee entertained towards Dr. Monckton. We think the cause is unquestionably to be found in the language aud demeanour of Dr. Monckton towards the members of the Committee themselves, whereby he managed deeply to offend them, and partly in complaints and statements which reached them from various quarters of similar language and demeanour towards subscribers and patients. Mr Burger, who was deputed by the Committee to represent that body, was very desirous to call the evidence of numerous persons to prove the offensive demeanour of the doctor towards them on various occasions. This evidence, however, after giving the matter the fullest consideration, we decided could not be admitted. The complaints had never been formally brought before the Committee, nor under the notice of the doctor, and we judged it to be unfair to him to permit such charges to be gone into now, when many months had elapsed, and it would be impossible for him satisfactorily to refute them. We felt that we could not deal specifically with such complaints; that every fresh statement made up by each witness would open up new matter for inquiry; that the investigation would be well nigh interminable, and the result altogether unsatisfactory. For these reasons, although we were reluctant to shat ont anything which the Committee so wished to press, we consideied that the only complaints of incivility or offensive conduct on the part of the doctor that we could listen to would be either such as concerned members of the Committee personally, or snch as had at some time been brought before the Committee and under notice of the doctor. We considered that what we had chiefly to determine on this head was the question whether the majority of the Committee honestly believed that the habitual deportment of the doctor towards those with whom he had to do was so offensive as to alienate subscribers and to be prejudicial to the welfare of the Hospital. We think it is fairly inferrible from the evidence that Dr. Monckton was very sensitive to any encroachment by means of the tickets and machinery of the Hospital upon what he deemed the legitimate sphere of his private practice. We do not say that he had no good reason for this jealousy, or that such abuse of Hospital machinery may not have been as common at Kamara as it is in many other places ; but we can scarcely avoid the belief that Dr. Monckton was wont to manifest his dissatisfaction and annoyance by the use of language and demeanour which are necessarily offensive, and which in fact caused deep resentment in the minds of those who were subject to it. The evidence of Joseph Meade will illustrate what we mean.

Our opinion is that the course pursued by the majority of the Committee is quite consistent with the belief that they acted in good faith and in the belief that they were doing what was best for the interests of the Hospital. This conclusion does not seem to be in any way invalidated by the mere proof of a personal feeling of hostility to himself, if that feeling was provoked by a gratuitously offensive manner to them, and if they believed that a similar manner was displayed to subscribers and patients. It would be otherwise if any reason bad been given for thinking that the doctor had incurred animosity either by persisting in doing his duty or trying to induce the Committee to do theirs. But of this there is no evidence at all; and, on the other hand, the general allegations of incivility of manner has not been denied. Before leaving this part of the subject we think it right to remark that the Committee might fairly look beyond the bare punctilious performance of prescribed duties within the Hospital wards, since the Hospitnl doctor is in fact the doctor for the whole district, and his general character as regards

kindness and courtesy is a matter of public concern. We think these considerations might have a legitimate weight in the question of determining an engagement, also provided no legal wrong was done. (2.) The next head is the conduct of the election of Committee-men io January. The whole Committee having resigned in order to test by a new election the feeling of the public in respect of the doctor, an election was accordingly held in the month of January. At tin's election, it was said that votes were made by the sale of ten shilling tickets, and we have no doubt at all that this was the case, although we are unable to say to what extent. But so far from being surprised at this, we should have been rather surprised if it had not been done in a case where strong feeling on both sides was displayed. The only way of preventing it was to call in all books of tickets before the election, and not to issue any more tickets until the election was over. But nothing was really done outside the usual course of things. The custom was for every member of Committee to have a ticketbook for the purpose of selling as many tickets as he could; and, unless debarred by some rules on the subject, it is not very easy to see why he should refuse tickets during an election. It appears that tickets to the amount of £6 10s were either issued or credited, or at all events were not accounted for on the first night of meeting after the election. Of this amount ,£4 was in the hands of Mr Spyer, the late secretary ; and the treasurer (Mr Nicholson), a supporter of Dr. Monckton, reported that he had obtained adequate security for the payment of this amount by Mr Spyer. The remainder of the money was duly paid by the Committee-men who had issued the tickets, and who, according to the general practice, were looked upon as responsible for it. We do not express any opinion on the desirability of admitting votes in this manner, but it certainly increases the Hospital funds and it is not very easy to see how the multiplication of votes can lead to defeat the expression of public opinion. (3.) We come now to the appointment of Dr. Davy, on the 19th of May. Having obtained a legal opinion from the late Mr Warner against the claim for damages made by Dr. Monckton, the Committee resolved that Dr. Davy be finally appointed Surgeonduperintendent, and that an urgent telegram be sent to him requesting him to come as soon as possible. Dr. Davy accordingly arrived on the 2nd June, and, after interviews with some members of the Committee, with Dr. Monckton, and with Mr Seddon (tho member for the district) and with Mr Campbell (a former member of the committee), Dr. Davy was impressed with the belief that things were not quite so satisfactory as he might reasonably have hoped. He found that Dr. Monckton was engaged in a lawsuit against the Committee, and good reason whs given him for apprehending that instead of leaving the place, he was likely to remain and retain the club appointments, which were an assured source of income. It is not much to be wondered at if Dr. Davy expressed his dissatisfaction unambiguously and talked of packing up his traps and departing; but he says that he never accused the Committee of deceiving him, and certainly he never informed the Committee that he had any intention of departing in any way from the engagement he had entered into. His intention to go away, if he had one, and his subsequent resolution to remain for a month, were matters within his own breast, or were only communicated to individuals in casunl conversation. As a matter of fact Dr. Davy entered at once on his duties, and has continued to discharge them up to this day. On the 16th June the House Committee reported to the Committee that Dr Davy, had been duly installed, and it was then resolved that an agreement with him should be prepared by the Secretary, and submitted for approval at the next meeting. The Secretary drafted an agreement, but, thinking it in some resppcts faulty, he put it away inside one of the Hospital books, meaning to draft a new one. jOix (he 26th June he received the telegram from the Under-Secretary, about which so much has been said, and which will be found in the file of papers. This telegram, in which the Committee was desired not to enter at present into any new engagement, was shown by the Secretary to several members of the Committee. On the same day Dr. Monckton's case against the Committee was coming on for trial at the Resident Magistrate's Court, and one of the committee, Mr Hannah, obiained frum the Sec etary for die purpose* of the trial the book in which, as luu, been stated, was placed the draft agreement pre-

pared, but afterwards condemned by the Secretary. The same evening MiHannah returned the agreement executed by the Treasurer and House Committee on the one part and Dr. Davy on the other. This transaction seems to require some explanation, and the view which we take of its meaning is this. We think that the members of Committee who got the agreement signed apprehended from the terms of Mr Cooper's telegram that the Government might refuse to ratify Dr. Davy's appointment, and they imagined that this intention might be frustrated by getting the agreement executed before the contents of the telegram were officially communicated to the Committee. This perfectly gratuitous bit of smart practice has had the effect of complicating a very simple matter, which only needed to be plainly stated in order to be clearly understood.

Mr Cooper's telegram shows that the Government was under the impression that Dr. Monckton's successor was only temporarily appointed. This was undoubtedly a misapprehension ; nothing could be more absolute than Dr. Davy's appointment. The resolution of the 19th May was quite unconditional. An urgent telegram was sent; Dr. Davy arrived, took charge of the Hospital the very next day, and has remained in charge ever since. We have not found in the official relations between Dr. Davy and the Committee any particulars which qualifies the absolute character of his appointment. There was no reason whatever why these gentlemen should take alarm at Mr Cooper's telegram; all that was necessary was to inform the Government of the plain facts of the case; aad if that had been done, no difficulty could well have arisen. But the Committee was undoubtedly placed in a false position by the too clever zeal of the 'House Committee, and we think they exercised a wise discretion in doing nothing. They have never recognised the agreement which had heen thus executed before it had been submitted to the Committee for approval, in compliance with their resolution of 16th June; and Mr Burger not onlytold the Secretary when he first heard of it, that the thing was ridiculous and could not be recognised, but he also explained the matter to Dr. Davy, who at once told him to take whatever course he might think right about the agreement. We believe that there is no other point of importance requiring comment from us. The evidence upon which we have formed our opinions accompanies this report, and the other papers are returned. We hope that what we have said may prove of some service in assisting the Government to understand the true state of matters, and we have the honour to remain, Sir, Your most obedient servants, Joseph Giles, Jackson Keddell. Hokitika, August 10, 1885.