INFANTILE PARALYSIS.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 8, Issue 55, 4 March 1916, Page 4

INFANTILE PARALYSIS.

THE NEWSPAPER CRITICISED

(To the Editor)

Sir, —I read your editorial on the above subject in your issue of Ist ■March. My purpose in writing is to defend a very capable officer from a most unjust attack and because that officer’s position precludes his defending himself. The gentleman referred L o has control of that part of the Wanganui Hospital and Charitable Aid District which includes the district from Marton to Erua, including Eaotihi and Pipiriki, Obviously, if lie were to be found in his office in this town whenever you required information, he would not be discharging his duties properly. If there is cause for complaint, a moment’s thought would have shown you that it is absurd to blam e any person holding a subordinate position for not'giving information that person is only allowed to give in his principal. The fault, if any, I submit, with great respect to your judgment, is yours for not applying for information in the proper quarter, i. 0., the Hospital Board and such strictures as you have passed on Mr. Swindells only make the work of a capable, tactful! and deserving officer very much harder to perform, by presenting that gentleman to the public as a disobliging and autocratic individual. —T am, etc., etc.. A. E. A RROWSMITH.

[With reference to the above: Wo have no objection to the writer stating what he thinks of the Health Inspector, and even go further, and say that we have no reason to differ with what 1 is said in that connection. Mr. Arrowsmith usually brings a trained judicial mind to bear on most public matters that attract his attention, or in which he is interested, but la the above letter he is so wide of the mark that, on first reading, it seemed to us that he had either addressed it to the wrong newspaper or had prejudicially read what we stated. So that there may be no misunderstanding, we- repeat the words complained of, 'which are as follows: "We understand that it is a reportable complaint, but we have not been able to learn whether any cases have been reported as the only representative of the Health Department was not at his office, probably being out of town. Borough Councils were the local health authorities to which such cases would be reported, but it seems that recent legislation has relieved them of that responsibility and has placed it on an Inspector who cannot he found when he is wanted.” It will be seen that we apologised for the Inspector’s absence—we were quite cognisant or the great territory he Las to cover—and although a different interpretation is admittedly possible in the second mention of his absence, we contend that our first reference completely discovered our intentions, and that if we complained about anything it was the fact that a change had been made in the law which deprived Taihape of a permanent health officer to which we could go for information. We also submit that the writer has been extremely unfortunate in the’ choice of terms used in his. accusation against us. He j says we made a - '‘most unjust attack.” This means something of an exUemo nature—in the positive, imperative, and superlative degree. Of course, *we did nothing of the kind. Further, we are

accused of making 1 ‘suck strictures, ” but as wc made no criticism of the Inspector or his actions, adversely or otherwise, or censured him in anv way, w e have nothing to answer in that respect. The suggestion that we should go to Wanganui to ask if there were ’any notifiable cases of disease, whether there is a local representative here or not, is impracticable; we would get it' as early from the Wanganui morning paper, perhaps earlier, and certainly without involving expense and loss of valuable' time. If the local Health Inspector has not the power to inform the newspaper of cases of infectious disease that doctors have statutorily notified, him of, then in the best interests of the health of our community,, no time should be lost’ by the proper J authorities in conferring that power upon him. In Conclusion, we may say that because the writer infers that wepresented the Inspector" to’ the public, as a disobliging, autocratic individual, it is not necessarily a correct statement of fact. We endeavour to lean rather to democracy than autocracy, believing that the man Avho wilfully injures his neighbour is something to bo avoided.—Ed.l