too 



The deceased eooly was not a new arrival, but had been on the 

 Estate a year or more, and meanwhile no further cases of sickness had 

 occurred, nor were there any signs of fear amongst the coolies. No 

 post mortem examination was held, and the symptoms as described to 

 us were not those of cholera, yet on arrival the Medical Officer dia- 

 gnosed the case as cholera, and ordered the destruction not only of the 

 set of lines in which the dead cooly had lived, but also another set of 

 lines situated about 28 yards away. 



This we look upon as reckless destruction of private property 

 without any adequate justification, and we represented the matter to 

 Government and claimed compensation, which, however, was refused. 



We subsequently consulted our lawyers, who, however, advise us 

 that nothing is to be gained by taking proceedings against Government 

 and that the only possible redress is to sue the Medical Officer for 

 damages; but even then, in order to obtain compensation, we should 

 have to prove malice, which, of course, w r e do not suggest. 



It appears to us that a law which authorises a Government Officer 

 to thus order the destruction of private property requires amendment, 

 and we hope your Association will see its way to take the matter up. 



Yours faithfully, 



p. p. WH ITT ALL & CO., 



(Sgd.) F. O. Sandek, 



Ay tilts. 



Mr. Parkinson gives some more details of the case, and says that 

 the prevalent idea in the District was that the man died of drink. No 

 post mortem was ever held, but the lines were burnt all the same, and 

 all the occupants had to camp for the night in the open, huddled 

 together without protection. 



Mr- J. Gibson thinks that the Medical Officer must have undis- 

 puted discretionary power to deal as he thinks necessary, and depre- 

 cates any attempt at restricting such discretion 



Mr. Browell says that it seemed clear that a mistake had occurred 

 on that occasion, and that proper measures had not been taken to 

 ascertain the facts of the case. The Medical Officer clearly had lost 

 his head ; still the principle of absolute discretion of the Medical Officer 

 in cases like these could not be tampered with. 



Mr. Parkinson is afraid that the previous speakers had somewhat 

 misunderstood the drift of his remarks. He did by no means suggest 

 that the powers of a Medical Officer be restricted, but he did think 

 that theirs was a case fully deserving compensation at the hands of 

 Government. 



The discussion then became general, Mr. Parkinson eventually 

 proposing. 



"That the Government be requested to grant compensation for 

 any private property the destruction of which may have been ordered 

 by a Medical Officer under the 'Prevention of Diseases Enactment. 5 " 



The motion, being seconded by Mr. Harrison, was put to the 

 meeting and carried by 13 votes to 2, 



