Mr. J.H. Burgar re Gaol Surgeon’s Duties

[Welland Tribune, 29 December 1882]

Editor Tribune:

DEAR SIR: In reply to my former letter, Mr. J.H. Burgar’s “conception” of uprightness seems very much shocked when I acknowledged to have used the county medicine to put up a small mixture for each of two county councillors, and he can hardly find words sufficiently strong to express his seemingly astonished indignation when I use the county medicine for a man who has dropped down of syncope, and whose heart shows a feebleness of action that means death in a few moments unless restoratives are immediately applied. But before I am through we will examine the motives which prompted this paragon to act, and we will see whether it was a wish to protect the interest of the county, or a desire to gratify the green-eyed envy and bitterness of soul which have been nursed in the breast of both Mr. J.H. Burgar and his brother for the past twelve years.

When there is a “dirty object to be accomplished” we find Mr. J.H. Burgar’s “conception” of uprightness shown in its true light. Under such circumstances this would be manly man stands forth in all the “unblushing” perfection of a pharisaical hypocrite, and, in the council chamber, in the dignity of his official position as reeve of the town of Welland, he sniffs the air and declares he smells something putrescent. He, however, does not ask that the prison inspector be requested to investigate any irregularities he imagines may be connected with my duties as gaol surgeon, for he knew such an investigation would be open and manly; I would have been present to hear the evidence; there would have been no opportunity for him to have done otherwise than to face the investigation honorable and “squarely;” the evidence would have been taken under oath and the report would have been in accord with that evidence. Such an investigation would not have answered Mr. J.H. Burgar’s purposes, and he would not have accomplished the object he had in view; so he moves for the appointment of a committee, he himself forming one of said committee, and in his last week’s letter he acknowledges that the committee had not the power to properly investigate his charges, but he evidently thought that by scheming he could get them to accomplish what he had undertaken. In a measure he succeeds. The committee is appointed. They hold “hole and corner” investigation, I am excluded from the room. The evidence is taken and a report is written out, the first of which is so outrageously false that even some members of the committee refuse to sign it; then another report is written and after much persuasion all the committee sign it except one. This report is presented to the county council and finally passed, and I know nothing about the matter until all has been completed, and yet in the face of such contemptible duplicity and intrigue, Mr. J.H. Burgar prates about honesty in a “county official.” Respecting the other members of the committee, I do not think they desired to do me an injustice.

With references to the price of medicine, I have no defence to offer for either Mr. J.H. Burgar or Mr. Hobson in respect to any excessive charges either of them may have made to either a brother druggist or the county. In my former letter I merely referred to this part of the committee’s evidence, which places both of these gentlemen on a par so far as profit on medicine is concerned; but when Mr. Burgar tells the pubic it is a part of my duty to audit Mr. Hobson’s accounts, he tells them what he knows to be untrue. The county have auditors for this purpose, and as to certifying to drug accounts, I merely certify that the drugs ordered were supplied. Here my duty ends, and in no instance have I certified as to price, simply because it was not a part of my duty.

I will be short in my reply to the gentlemen who seem to think the public cannot believe them except when under oath. In regard to Dr. Burgar’s declaration, the only essential part in which he is correct is where he swears he made application for the appointment to the position of gaol surgeon. The other part of the declaration is not true, for at the time to which he refers I neither applied for an increase of salary now did I put a document to that effect into “the hands of a member of the then council.”

With reference to Dr. Glasgow, I might be willing to acknowledge that he may understand the Indian language, but he certainly seems incapable of comprehending a very simple sentence in English. I did not say Dr. Glasgow applied for the position of gaol surgeon. I said he figured for it, and if the Doctor wishes to carry out the impression he desires to give the public, let him come out next week with another declaration and swear that he never asked any person to use his influence to obtain for him (Glasgow) the position of gaol surgeon. If the Doctor will do this I will try and convince him he is swearing fast and loose.

Yours truly,

J.W. SCHOOLEY