SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 25, 8 February 1873, Page 1 (Supplement)

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1873.

We decidedly think we shall be extremely remiss in our duty, if we permit the sad occurrence of Constable Hart’s death, and the particulars of the inquest held over his body, to pass by without remark. We would that we could do so with a conscientious conviction that there will be no repetition of such a disaster, and that the circumstances which have deprived one human being of life, are not even now culminating to a point which may involve the fate of another unconscious victim. The time has fully arrived when the Legislature ought to pass some more stringent measure than exists at present, by which the use and custody of poisonous chemicals are regulated. The people have a fight to legislative protection, and immunity from the probable chances of unexpected death which stare them in the face at every turn on our sheep stations and runs, owing to a general exhibition of carelessness in disposing of drugs rendered necessary by the custom of the craft. The tragic lesson of last Monday week at Waerenga-a-hika carries with it a moral which it were well to study deeply. That lesson, dear though it be at its present cost, will prove a ruinous possession if the instruction it is intended to convey, passes unheeded by; and what is that lesson t Does it not write in characters of blood on the lintels of our moral understanding, the solemn —the awfbl fact that we are regardless of the sacrifice of human we care more for the lives of sheep than we do for the lives of men ? Let Mr. Poynter be our witness. In a portion of his evidence at the inquest, he says : —“ The cask then stood ten or fifteen yards from where the men were cooking, and then had a portion of an iron bedstead over the top of it. It is not usually kept covered when in use. The reason it is kept covered is to prevent ‘ stock ’ from drinking out of it. It has never occurred to me that it could be used for drinking-water by men.” Here is a direct testimony on oath that the safety of the “ stock” was the great care and regard of an establishment where deadly compounds were used on a wholesale scale. Yet there seems to be a strange inconsistency in the fact that although it had “ never occurred to Mr. Poynter that it could be used for drinking-water by men,” he “particularly pointed out the cask, and said the contents might be mistaken for ordinary water, as it was clear and in the face of these antagonistic conclusions, takes no more means of security against the possibility of either hypothesis, than that the “stock” should not come to grief. We do not, by any process of reasoning, intend to impute a criminal design, or a seeking to entrap the lives of men ; there is no code of human law that holds a man responsible for the results of pure accident; but there is a divinity in the moral law which, as in this case, attaches a blame, although, peradventure, with lenient and remote consequences. We know that Mr. Poynter, and those around him, must feel with a keen remorse that the life just taken comes within that category. We sympathise heartily with him in the heavy care that must occupy his thoughts; but we must not let that disturb us from a dispassionate analysis of the circumstances that led to results which, probably ere this, sit at some hearts, even heavier than at his own.

The Act which professes “To regulatethe sale and keeping of certain poisons” is powerless as a remedial measure, and stultifies itself in every clause. The gnat who is likely to fly to the chemist tor relief in sixpen’orth of laudanum, is

properly bound down with retrictions from which there is no escape, while the camel may transport ansenic by the ton, to be scattered broad-cast over the land without let or hindrance. The protection society gets in one way, is stealthily abstracted in another. Thus: “No person under 17 years shall buy or sell poisons, and no person shall sell any poison unless in the presence of a witness,” —he or the customer being known to the seller—and the particulars of any sale must be entered in a book to be attested by both buyer and seller. This is a sort of safeguard against intentional crime, and gives the police a clue in the detection of it; but none of those restrictions “ extend to the sale of poisons * • • when they affect dealings between one trader and another, * * • or to affect wholesale dealing upon orders in writing.” The logic of which is that slaughtering on a small scale requires a deal of sanctimonious unction about it; that it needs the sanction of parliament for a housewife to obtain a little almond flavoring for the family dinner under a penalty of £2O, while her husband can send “an order in writing” to a neighboring store for enough virulent poison to depopulate the whole country. To show that no exaggeration waits upon our pen, in condemning the thoughtlessness generally displayed in these matters, we would refer to circumstances that occurred in this Bay not long since, when a bag in which arsenic had been kept was sent to a neighboring station for meat, which, when cooked; caused violent sickness to all who partook of it. But in returning to the evidence before us, we repeat that it discloses an absence of proper precautions. All the witnesses depose to having been cautioned against using “the utensils” about the place. Mr. Poynter says he cautioned “ all the men” against using “ any bucket, pannikin, dish, or other utensil, for they were all poisonous but one,” but to only “ one individual” he “ pointed out the boiler, in which the arsenic was boiled, and also the cask spoken of in evidence, and told him they were both poisonous.” So far, so good ; but why stop there ? Is it too severe to pass censure on measures, whose destructiveness lies in their incompleteness ? Why, in the presence of the fact that “all the utensils, dishes,

pannikins, and buckets, were pronounced “ poisonous,” allow them to lie strewn about the premises, in close proximity to a boiler and open cask containing a solution of potent poison ? Mr. Poynter says he spoke “ more particularly to the Sergeant in charge.” Then why did he not call the Sergeant to prove that he had in his turn not been lax in his discipline over his men. Captain Richardson was also “ warned of the danger to be incurred from arsenic” (that, by the way, was merely stating a truism), but why was he not required to state how he recognises the performance of his duty, by allowing the men to camp aiid cook amidst a profusion of poisoned utensils, within “ about ten or fifteen yards” from a cauldron of arsenic, the contents of which “ might be mistaken for ordinary “ water, as it was clear” ? Here we stumble against another dilemma. Constable Helps swears that he “ did not know there was poison in the cask.” Allowing that he was not of the “ six ’or seven,” whom Mr. Poynter, warned, does that fact not point to the necessity of pursuing this investigation to a more complete and satisfactory conclusion ? The Act from which we have quoted, stipulates an express condition, which would prevent arsenical’ compounds being mistaken for pure water, had not the “ wholesale dealing” clause been inserted. It provides for a coloring matter—soot or indigo—being mixed with arsenic before sale, provided such mixture does not render it unfit for use; and, although in some cases, the wool might suffer in its use, as a foot-rot wash, the argument cannot hold good.

We endorse the good judgment of the jury in the substance of tho rider to their verdict, and trust that the Government will take immediate steps towards enforcing the provisions of the Act until Parliament, meets, and then to frame a new law whose punitive effect will remove the stigma, that less care is taken of human life than of a flock of sheep or a pack of park hounds.

New Buildings.—The frame of Mr. Boylan's new store was erected to-day; the building when finished occupying as it does aeommanding situation, will be a handsome addition to the business portion of the town. We notice also thsf, Messrs. Neal and Close's new premium, opposite the Union Bank, are receiving the last finishing decorations, and have been opened within the last few days. The architecture of this building is in harmony with the Union Bank, and is one of the largest buildings in Napier. Several smaller edifices are in course of erection on the flat mH of the island, while on the hill new private hrmaw going up in all directions.—Napier Zfe&yrapA. HeabtlbssConduct.—An elderiy gentleman, while comfortably enjoying the warmth of his own drawing-room fire, tenwd his toes eat. No reason has been assigned for this barbarous cruelty.—Paarib.