CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 105, 12 April 1884, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents). HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The publication of the proceedings of the late meeting of the Hospital Committee, read with your able leader on the subject in the Telephone can leave no doubt in the minds of the public that there has been, and still is, gross mismanagement of the funds of the institution, either by the members of the Committee, or else by their servants. . The public of Poverty Bay have, by subscriptions among themselves, aided by Colonial revenue, built an hospital—and a very creditable one—for purposes too well known even by the most ignorant for me to refer to here. This institution lias been carried on for a number of years in an unsatisfactory manner. With ample funds, obtained, not only through the same channels, but also from patients who had to seek its refuge; yet not a single subscriber, —noteven the Government, lias cared whether such funds have been properly applied and carefully expended, or otherwise. It is true that an Hospital Committee has been annually elected to manage its affairs, but how many members of such Committee (if any) paid the slightest attention to the responsible duties which they undertook ? Judging from the reports of the proceedings of their meetings, and the not at all creditable correspondence published lately in the Herald, it appears to me that some members of the Committee sought election for the purpose, to use a vulgar expression, “ of feathering their own nests,” at the expense of the subscribers and the Colonial Revenue. I have said some

members! Are there not others who have made, and still continue to make, a profit by being members of the Hospital Committee? If a few have been held up to public ridicule, why should not an example be made of others who are just as bad, if not worse? In writing thus, I admit I am guided by that lying jade — common rumour — but should not the actions of those gentlemen who form the Committee be like Caesar’s wife—above suspicion. If such was the case I am sure the management of the institution would be, what it is not, a credit to the district “Rumour” has it that it cost a late patient £4 per week in the Hospital, and that even then such patient did not receive that attention which even a pauper patient was entitled to. Should not the members of the Committee cause enquiry to be made into the truth or otherwise of such, and similar reports, and clear themselves from the imputations, probably unjust, cast on the management of the only charitable institution in Poverty Bay. There are no doubt many honourable men on the Committee, for instance Mr. Booth, our worthy and respected R.M., but the office was, I believe, cast upon him unasked and unsought for. There is no gentleman in the Bay for whom 1,--in common with many others if not all, entertain a higher respect and I very much regret, as no doubt by this time he does himself, that he did not see fit to decline the doubtful honor cast upon him. However Mr. Booth being a member of the Committee he must bear his share of the responsibilities—no matter how innocent he may be. His friends (?) were very anxious to have him on the committee and for a very good reason, but well may he now exclaim “save me from my friends.” I have before me the names of the members of Committee and I mention Dlr. Booth’s name first because his actions are far above suspicion. Being at the time of his election a stranger to “the ways that are strange ” he very naturally accepted the office thinking that the Hospital affairs are carried on here as they are elsewhere, by gentlemen having its welfare and the honor and character dear at heart. I assert without any feai’ of contridiction that if the Committee consisted of say six gentlemen like Mr. Booth during the past few years, the funds would not have been squandered in the manner set forth in your leading article. Instead of the public being told that there was only £BO to carry on the institution they would be told that there was to Hospital credit £BOO oi’ more which they did not require and recommend its investment. Until the Committee is formed as suggested there remains little to hope for any improvement in the management, or that the public will subscribe as heretofore. I shall in future letters if you permit me refer to the other members of the Committee but I cannot close this without asking the Committee if they have any objections to state at their next meeting the amount owing the institution by patients incurred since the Ist day of January, 1881. Also, the names of those who, at the time of leaving or at death, were indebted to the institution in amounts exceeding £lO. Rumor again has it that if this information is supplied the funds of the institution will be considerably increased. So mote it be.—Yours, etc., Charity. Poverty Bay, 2nd April, 1884.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—The thanks of the public at large are due to you for exposing some of the secrets in connection with the Hospital “ farming.” Your report of the meeting on Wednesday evening, standing out in bold relief with that of your contemporary. However the, reticence of the latter is easily accounted for. I would like to suggest that at the enquiry to be held, all who have been patients at the institution be invited to attend and give evidence, and that the evidence be published in full, so that subscribers may form for themselves an opinion as to how the money goes.—l am, etc., Watch Doo.