CO537-36 — Page 698

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