400 
The deceased cooly 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, we 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. Whitt all & Co., 
(Sgd.) F. O. Sander, 
Agents. 
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 BroweH 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 bad lost 
his head ; still the principle of absolute discretion of the Medical Officei 
in cases like these could not be tampered with. 
Mr Parkiuson is afraid that the previous speakers had somewhat 
misunderstood the drift of his remarks He did by no 
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 loi 
any private property the destruction of which may have been ordered 
bv\ P Medical Officer under the ‘Prevention of Diseases Enactment. 
The motion, being seconded by Mr. Harrison, was put to the 
meeting and carried by 13 votes to 2, 
