THAMES HOSPITAL COMMITTEE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2001, 3 June 1875, Page 2

THAMES HOSPITAL COMMITTEE.

The half-yearly meeting of the Thames Hospital Committee was held yesterday afternoon in the Salutation Hotel. There werepresent —Mr Win*'.3towe (President); Eevs. Hill, Crump, and Lush; Messrs fticllhone, Dewar, Bagnall, Sims, Hudson, Frater, Comer, Macnab, Johns, ißenshaw, Hill, Jidam^ Benney,; Brown, Gudgeon, jfennan, McCullough 4 and Davies. „ . r - '' " HOtTSE COMMITTEE'S REPORT. Mr MqCullough read, the House Committee's report, which." noted. ■ some' alterations which had been performed under the supervision of MriHollis. Mr Bagnall moved, and Mr Sims seconded that the report be adopted. BAiANCE SHEET. Mr Eenshaw read the balance sheet, which showed that after paying up for ;the half year, the hank account would be -overdrawn £22, but that the, Provincial subsidy of £166 had fa.ll|n due. ? subgkeon's keport. : The Surgeon's report was read by the Secretaiy. - - ; The average number admitted during the half-year was the largest since June, 1872, The surgeon \ suggested the advisability of purchasing certain instruments,- a :-list of which was given, to cost £22, which included acase of instruments to cost 12 guineas ; also a list of drugs. Regarding the instruments, Dr Lcthbridgo. stated, that he could supply a casb of inferior quality/for £5, which would answer the purposes of the Hospital, as he had sent fora superior case.

i Mr Bagnali moved the reception of the i report, and also that the instruments 'recommended be purchased. ; Mr Kennan moved as an amendment fthat the instruments and drugs be chasedSeconded by Me Baguall, and carried.

TENDERS. The following, tenders were opened, and considered:— For groceries :—J. Hansen, K. French, Wm. Deeble, Hewin Bros., Augustus Balcke; ■

Mr Davies remarked that it was impossible to do justice in the acceptance of any tender without samples were sent.He could not see how any conclusion could be come to when there were such a variety of things ranging at such different prices, unle»3 samples of the goods '.were submitted. There was a great difference, for instance, in the quality and price of tea,. jalspsoap and rice. He spoke from experience, and thought an injustice might be done. It was shown that the form stated that the, goods supplied should..be ",pf, the best quality, and subject to the approval of the Committee." ;r..?;?'

.Mr. McCullough proposed that the tender of Mr Balcke be accepted. Mr Eenshaw proposed that the tender of Mr Deeblo be accepted. Mr Sims proposed that Mr French's tender be accepted. Ho was a conscientious man, and would supply them well, and he considered he was entitled to some consideration.

:; Mr iCennan.; seconded' the proposal. He^ likewise considered Mr French was entitled to some consideration. ■ . •■>

Mr Hill said Mr Sims was arguing on a wrong principle* They had nobusiness to say that ono roan was honorable and another not. They were all honorable men. Let them accept the lowest tender. .

The prices given by Messrs Deebleand Balcke respectively were compared, and Mr Balcke's tender was accepted.

btttcheb's tendeb. Mr Daziel was the only tenderer, and his tender was therefore accepted. BHEAD. James Ebrgie, Rolleston and Sons, and Peter Norbury. Mr Forgie has been supplying t!he Hospital for. thepast half-; year, and his tender was accepted. . .. MILK... , , 5 :. : , . Th«re were two tenders for supplying milk—Thomas Williams and ;Wm. Hurk. The latter was accepted. ■;V ■'•'"■" ''""'■'■';/.';ipi&*EßAtv _;'';" '~' ■■'"■' John Grigg was the sole tenderer for conducting funerals, and his was accepted.l '■■■:■■ :■■■■;:■■•. -. ..-..■:"! ■;••■ '-^a,-- X "I k-:-, ■>'■■.-■■'■: -/-WASHING-.- -i.---; '..,{■?: Of the tenders submitted by Mr Snelgar and^Mrs iiomas,- that of Mrs Loinas was accepted, being the lowest. r ; HOSPITAL SXTBGEON.

There were three applicants for this office, namely, Drs Fox, Payne and Lethbridge, the latter having held the office up to,the present. .•<-,■ --, :i ■ - ''"A." discussion arose as/to whether the voting should be open or by ballot Mr Renshaw proposed that it should be open voting. - > - .-•■ - Mr Hudson proposed that they should vote by ballot. Mr Mcllhone seconded the amendment." " ■

The result, when the proposition was put to the meeting, was—ayes, 12; noes, 9.

Mr Bagnall said it was a quite unheard of proceeding.

The president said he was not aware there was anything unusual in the course. .

Mr Bagnall said he knew that ballot voting was rejected in the Provincial Council the other night when electing a committee.

Mr Brown said it was improper to discuss the question how. that it had been decided. The majority must always rule the minority. :Mr Bagnall—lt does not follow that the majority are right. The President said Mr Bagnall was entirely out of order. He had no right to say that the majority were wrong.

Mr Sims proposed that Dr Lethbridge be re-appointed to theroffiee of House Surgeon. They could not better their prospects were they to elect any one else. Therehad never been any complaint proved against him since he had been connected with the institution. He considered the Hospital would suffer to some extent if they did not elect him. As to Dr Payne they were quite aware from the exhibition which he had made that he was not qualified. Dr Fox was not qualified for the office. He was not a surgical man. He might have recommendations as an oculist, but his qualifications stopped there. ; They were all acquainted with" the abilities of Dr Lethbridge, and he (Mr Sims) begged to propose him.

Mr Davies .begged to second the proposition—or rather to speak in favor of Dr Lethbridge, and he was induced to do so, because it had been decided to vote by ballot, and he would like to let the public know which way he voted. Dr Lethbridge had done nothing which unfitted him for the position he wished to retain, and he considered, therefore, that he should be re-elected.

Mr Kennan spoke in the same strain. He wished also to let the public know for whom ha voted. Outside of any personal friendship he might entertain for Dr. Lethbridge,, he knew of nothing which should disqualify him from retaining the office te now held. - Mr Brown said he had supported the ballot system — not because he cared whether it was known which way ■he voted, as he had no hesitation in saying that he should voto for Dr Fox, but there might bo some of the Committee who were not in the name position as himself. He took it that the ballot was. chosen because members were anxious that the party spirit which had characterised meetings of the Committee some time since should not be rovived. (Hear, near.) From the eager manner in which had supported Dr Lethbridge, he inferred that they expected something disparaging would be.said of him. .He had wished that that subject should not bd broached, ;and thought that 1 by voting by ballot it would not be raised. , Another thing, there were present four men from one 1 mine and three from aaother, and although he did. not doubt they would, vote conscientiously oh a question of "right and ;wrong, they would naturally be, inclined to vote together.. ; ; \ The Eev. Mr Lush opined .that previous speakers had not. alluded to. anything in : connection with former differences—they had simply risen to state for whom they were going to vote, and it wa3 as legifci«mate for them to do that as:for Mr Brown ;to say that ho was going to vote for Dr I Fox. He could not believe, moreover, :that. the.three, or four gentlemen, would not Vote kiGcbrding to their conscience because they were connected in business. For himself, he should vote for Dr Lethbridge.

Mr Mcllhone was sorry this matter had arisen. Ho thought it much better to let things remain as they were without any discussion, and it was with this view he had voted for the ballot. As to caring about it being known who he voted for, it was quite an error. Mr Comer said they had three candidates before them, all well known, and they had; to choose the most competent. Each one of the Committee would have his peculiar opinion—one voted for one, and another for another. He would propose Dr Fox. Mr Fratcr seconded, and he would like to agk Mr Sims what authority he had for saying Dr Fox was not a surgeon. It was a grave charge to make against any one, and it appeared to have been made iv order to aid his (Mr Sims) friends. He ought to have good reason for such a statement.. He, did not wish to say anything against either candidate. It was sufficient for him to say that he believed Dr Fox to be a thoroughlyqualificd hTan. ;' .■■■■■■■' '■ .. -:- :. '; : ; .'; -::;; js.

Mr Bagnall said Dr Fox was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and of the Royal College of Physicians. Mr ; Sims said he had received Ills information from ; a prominent chemist of Grahamstown —he would nob name him —with whom Dr Fox was in daily communication; ' ■■-".■■ = ;-:

Mr Bagnall moved, and Mr Simi seconded that the names r of the parties voting for " vote by : ballot" be taken down, but the motion was ultimately rejected by a majority of one. ... . The Chairman, on counting the papers, gave out the result as follows : — Yor Dr Fox, 13; for Dr Lothbridge, 9. Dr Pox was therefore declared elected.

Mr McCullough suggested that as Dr Fox bad been elected, his opinion should be asked with reference to the purchase of instruments suggested by Dr Lethbridge^ but the suggestion was "not adopted, it being thought jit .would seem to reflect upon Dr Lethbridge. .•,.■: -.;■;■•;:'.'■■.■"• Plßpbns.ee.-,; f ;• .--.^a Mr Aitken was re-appointed to this office; there was no other applicant. SECBETABY. . . Mr Honiss, the only applicant for the office of secretary, was re-appointed, and on the motion of Mr Macnab was granted a mm of £10 in addition to his ordinary ■alary, for extra work during the last halfyear; i •> ' ? -.;■• HOtTSE COMMITTEE. The two retiring members were Messrs Macnab _ and Brown; those elected being Messrs Kenrian and Crumps - i ( j The meeting then adjourned.