ITE
1653.
872
TA
A.
Medical Department.
I am quite sure that the M. 0. H. Acting M. 0. X. would have been informed that the P. C. M. Ö. vs Haad
of the Sanitary Department, and was responsible for the discipline of the Department, after the passing of
Ordinance No 23 of 1903.
And he would have been officially informed of that ↑157350
A.
I should say so. To begin with, he would be
furnished with a copy of the Ordinance.
รา 4.
A.
Did you, as P. C. M. 0. aot on that assumption ?
Yes.
15357
15352
Kr Shelton Hooper:-
A.
Do you consider that Standing Order No 2 is valin today? Not to that extent of requiring action on the part of
the Board.
The Chairman:-
Is it valia in every other respect •·
15353
A.
54
&
I may add that as soon as Dr Atkinson returned, I told him that the question of the Standing Orders needed revision, and that I had taken no action, as I was only an mating Officer, and I waited until his return. That ir interesting to know, Dr Clark, but what we want
15354
A.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
། ། ། །
C.O. 537
to get at is the view you took of the Standing Orders, while you were in charge of the Department ?
The view I took of them was,
that they had been repeal-
ed by a Gertain Ordinance, but that so far as the general duties of the staff were concerned, apart altogether from the question of discipline, they held
good. They lay dow certain hours for the different Officers, vertsin hours of duty, certain details of
duty, These I consider hold good.
But other points did not hold good ?
Not the question of discipline, because that was altered by the Ordinance.
Song an
Q.
A.
36
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMIS310# OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE