CLEARING THE AIR.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXX, Issue 67, 23 June 1916, Page 5

CLEARING THE AIR.

DR. PAGET ONCE MORE. TTo Thb Editor Stbawoud Post,] Sir, —Frankness I not only profess to appreciate, but do appreciate, and I thank you for your frank, and, in some ways, true, character sketch of me which you furnish in your editorial columns yesterday, ami if .1 think it somewhat overdrawn and highly-color-ed no doubt I am liable to the prejudice arisipg out of my “extraordinary views of right and wrong.” I am glad to know that its frankness is dictated by “a feeling of the kindliest regard,” and not by the fact that 1 “recklessly flung aside a friendship at a whispered word.” It has the merit of-being more detailed than your last editorial reference to me when you compared me to “a recoiling red herring” and “an ostrich that hid its head

in wordy subterfuge.” You also give me the opportunity to deny a misstatement that has l>ccn going the rounds of the man-in-the-street foe; some years, and which you repeat, viz., that when 1 was Medical Superintendent of the Hospital ‘‘l jealously excluded other medical practitioners.” (1 never heard before that I excluded their patients). It may interest you to know that so far from excluding them, I asked the then Chairman that they be given the right to attend and have sole control of their own- patients in the Hospital, that he laid this offer before the gentlemen then practising here, and they rejected it. 'What 1 would not have was a divided control of patients placed in my hands, and this is one of the points I am fighting for now, viz., the fight to control my own patients in or out of the Hospital so long as they desire it, and not to have thorn forced out of my hands against their wishes. As for your statement that I offered to settle something “by the arbitrament of a wager,” I think -ton are hardly accurate there. 1 offered to forfeit £lO if I was wrong on a very important point, as a substantial proof that I believed myself to be right. A wager implies the chance to win or lose on either •side, and I particularly refrained from putting Mr McAllister in the position of being a loser jf I was right. I am glad to know that Mr McAllister entertains such kindly personal feelings for me, which It entirely reciprocate. Again tllMtkingJyou for your frankness ahd exjjwejssiou of kindly feeling, and npologi&ipg for having taken tip-so muc hof your paper’s valuable space.—J ,am Mb.,‘ T. L. PkGET. Stratford, June 25th, 1916. (We are indebted to Hr. Paget for his appreciation of our frankness and for his kindly explanation of the definition of the word wager. It is also a graceful tribute that he should store up what we have had occasion to write regarding but his memory is surely a tritie at fault in quoting from a certain article-whieh appeared in our columns in the almost-forgotten past. His sense of fairness must at once acknowledge Mhefpmliflcss entile unintentional) ho makes readajfwhat did actually wc crave indulgelfce foi F reproducing the part^4% It reads; '*^ss* * “Winle r 'blie could hardly assert that there wag a of the salty sea” about the meeting'in the Town Hairiast night, there were most. _ (unmistakable \\Kiffs of Billingsgate'in the air, and red herrings floated freely and frequently across the horizon from air points of the compass. There were whole barrels of this notorious fish emptied out on the stage and hall floor, and some of them were as smellitiuous as an ancient Lenten cod from acrobatic performances also?of Ihe homely red-herring, according to some gentlemen who proffered their light , ..and leading .to „ a.. ,nLU&Ui|iekled crowd, wore quite unique, and in ly affirmed that a partufilarly knowySßslb-while being djigged across . actually rAiled I With .Such pvobeedingK it wa®iardly possible to take anyone, c* anything, very seriously: even Jfceally serious people wild were not for joking were laughed to sconßwuen they stood up seriously to saSwhat they seriously meant. . . BThero were spiteful people and theiw were humourists amongst the crowg—and there was the candidate. Wejtfiould have likod, him better if he hjp left unsaid some of the purely pßsonal things he did say, but his Recuse must be that he was being&adly heckled by some of Air Kirkßpod’s doughtiest henchmen, thoughM’e do not for one moment associsgb Air Kirkwood with all the fol® his friends might be guilty of. 5, Dr. Paget, for instance, a ilvorthß supporter of Mr Kirkwood R-day, would be too much for buy Candidate to swallow wholethe"*, “recoiling red herring” would wt be half so upsetting, so ehi sive, tricky and uncertain, as that triflin persou becomes when personal Jjumus actuates him to tpke a sid<« His object is usually so trauspweutly on the surface, though hejimay, ostrich-like, bury his head inSvordy subterfuge that the laugh iSmore often against than with himWn his public utterances.” £ This puts a somewhat differerS complexion on what we are stated w have said. Dr. Paget’s statements giveiakbove regarding the Hospital do ncS disclose the whole position : butßf we can assist him in any way ® dissipate false impressions or toßbring about greater harmony than liws existed, we are sincerely tlcsirofismf doing so. Accordingly we fully accept his protestations on that head and deeply regret that there has over been any misunderstanding between himself and the Hospital Board.—Ed. “Stratford Post.”)