Sessional_Paper_1907 — Page 721

826

Paragraph 158.

Shortly after this Ordinance becanic law Dr. PEARSE (the Acting Medical Officer of Health) and myself-Dr. CLARK being then away on leave at the request of Sir HENRY BLAKE, explained to a meeting of the principal Chinese residents the meaning of the various new sections dealing with external air, cubicles, overcrowding, &c. I mention this as the Commissioners say in their report that too little attention has been given to the importance of enlisting the co-operation of the Chinese,

Notwithstanding all that was being done plague still continued and in the spring of 1903, Sir HENRY BLAKE'S experiment was made, whereby the Chinese were taught the good effect of cleansing their houses.

As a practical result of this experiment we have been able to obtain the co-operation of the Chinese in the cleansing processes which are now periodically carried on by the in- habitants themselves at a comparatively small cost to the Government, the Sanitary Depart- ment supplying the cleansing materials and carrying away the rubbish.

The cleansing operations in 1901-2 cost $81,352.89 whereas in 1903-4 they cost the Government less than $7,000.

It is difficult to dogmatise concerning the effects certain measures have produced in dealing with a disease like plague, but I am convinced that the marked diminution which has Appendix A. occurred in the number of plague cases during the years 1904, 1905 and 1906 is a direct result of these cleansing processes carried out voluntarily by the inhabitants themselves, the average annual number of cases during these three years being 542 as compared with an average of 1.212 cases for the

years 1901-1903.

The increase in 1906, as compared with 1905, was I think due to the scarcity of water in the spring of that year interfering with the cleansing operations.

In 1903, it was found that certain sections of the New Ordinance were unworkable and an amended Ordinance was passed in December of that year appointing the Principal Civil Medical Officer the administrative head of the Sanitary Department. This came into effect on December 19th, 1903, and from that date until ny departure on leave in March, 1905, a period of fifteen months, I acted as Head of the Department.

During my alsence on leave, in May, 1906, the Commission which has just issued its report was appointed by ir MATTHEW NATHAN.

Paragraphs 131, 156, 171, 202, 252, 284, 324, 351, 368-9, 398-9.—Concerning the report as a whole it is open to the remark that it is unjudicial in tone. As bearing out this statement I would call attention to the vague sweeping and serious findings where cou- clusions have been arrived at which the Commissioners do not in their report cite any evidence to support.

It is not so much what is said as what is inferred that I consider so unfair.

L

I must protest against the way in which the Inspectors and Servants of the Department have been branded, as in the latter part of paragraph 398 where they state no man is apparently too poor to be exploited, and there is no form of exaction, however mean and contemptible, to which the Inspectors and Servants of the Sanitary Department will not stoop.'

It is much to be regretted that some of the Inspectors have so demeaned themselves as to accept bribes but why the whole of the Staff should be stigmatised in this way is most unjust.

There are 35 Sanitary Inspectors. Of these 5 were found guilty of corrupt practices and dismissed, while I was transferred to another Department, while the cases of 2 are still under consideration; the cases of 8 others were inquired into and the Commissioners reported that in their opinion the charges had not been proved. No charges whatever were made against the remainder.

I am sure that there are many of the Officers and Servants who are straightforward and trustworthy men and I have much pleasure in bearing testimony to this.