THE GAOL SURGEON

[Welland Tribune, 15 December 1882]

To the Editor of the Welland Tribune:

DEAR SIR- I ask space for a few comments upon the report of the committee re my duties as gaol surgeon.

The report states that the county has been paying from 100 to 125 per cent more for drugs than it should. Now Mr. Cumines told me that he showed the committee over Mr. Burgar’s own signature, that he (Burgar) charged him (Cumines) 60¢ for 1½ ounces of a medicine, the price of which was 11¢. I merely mention this to show that if Mr. Hobson has charged the county a good profit on medicines, Mr. Burgar has charged even a brother druggist an equally large profit, and in the face of this fact has united with other members of the committee to condemn another brother druggist for taking a profit which he himself charges. The price of drugs does not concern me, and with this part of the report I really have nothing to do. I, however, fully agree with the suggestion that the medicine should be furnished by tender. The report also states that the quantity of medicine supplied appears more than was necessary and that in a few instances medicines were used for other than gaol purposes. The quantity of medicine used will invariably depend on the amount of sickness, and all I can say is there was no more medicine used than was necessary. Respecting the use of medicine for other than gaol purposes, I told the committee that during a session of the county council, I put up a small mixture for Mr. E. Furry, the warden, one for the late Mr. Edwin Hershey; one for Mr. G.L. Hobson, when he was suddenly ill at the court house; one for Mrs. J.P. Evans, on the Sabbath when the drug stores were closed; and one for either Mr. or Mrs. Gill.

I also told the committee that I had frequently used medicines from my pocket case for the prison, and that I had supplied more medicine than had been used for other than gaol purposes. In the discussion of the report before the county council, Messrs. Garner and Ramsden are reported as saying that the amount of medicine used for other than gaol purposes was not worth over one or two dollars. From this I infer that the only evidence the committee had on this part of the report was what I gave. If so, they must have gone at their work with a determination of bringing in a damaging report, and they succeeded in doing so only by rejecting a part of the evidence, and putting a construction upon the balance which the facts did not warrant. In this discussion Messrs. Burger and Garner intimate there is something else to be told. Now I am interested in this matter, and I would like to know why they did not tell it. Who asked them to conceal anything? It was eleven months from the time the committee was appointed until they brought in their report. Surely this ought to have enabled them to ventilate this matter, and it is not creditable for them to intimate that they had found something but they would not bring it out in the report. In conclusion, I may as well tell the public the “true inwardness” of this investigation. Dr. Burgar, a brother of Mr. Hamilton Burgar, the mover in this charge, applied to be appointed gaol surgeon, but did not succeed; then Dr. Glasgow figured with the same object in view, and also failed. Consequently there was no alternative but to bring the charge which, as far as its real object was concerned, has failed also.

Yours truly,

J.W Schooley

Welland, Dec. 13^th, 1882