The Globe. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 605, 27 May 1876, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1876.

Without wishing to comment upon a case which is sub judice, we yet cannot refrain from noticing t he very peculiar condition of things which a portion of the evidence given at the leceni inquest at the Hospital discloses. Combinations of operatives, we know, as against capital, have always been denounced in good set terms by writers, and it has been triumphantly asserted as a proof of superiority that only uneducated persons would join in organizations such as Trades’ Unions, &c. Now, if there is one profession more than another which prides itself, and justly so, upon standing higher in the edncational and social scale it is that of medicine, and therefore to discover that Trades’ Unionism is as rampant amongst the disciples of Glalen in Christchurch as ever it was in Sheffield, is rather astonishing. If the evidence given by Mr. Townend at the inquest referred to is to be relied on, we find that in Christchurch there exists a combination on the part of the medical profession against any infringement of certain rules as to charges, and that like any other Trades Union they are perfectly ready to ostacise any one who works for what they consider under price Mr Townend in his evidence at the late inquest is reported to have said :—“ About this time Mr Isaacs “ sent for|me and asked me if I thought “ it requisite to have another doctor. “ I told him not just then, but that if “ I should think it necessary he could “ do so, and I was willing to give up “ the case to them, knowing that no “ medical man in Christchurch would “ meet me or my brother.” That means rendered into plain English, that the medical men of Christchurch have formed themselves into a combination not to recognise a professional brother if he charges a lower sum than has been fixed by them for his services. We all know that in England, and more rarely in the colonies, cases of intimidation have taken place for which the delinquents have had to suffer imprisonment. In their case they acted according to their lights and tried physical force, but the doctors here, wise in their generation, substitute moral intimidation, quite as effectual perhaps, but not amenable to the law. In Dr Towuend’s case there can be no other cause than the one we have referred to, viz , the combination to keep up a high scale of remuneration. That gentleman is legally qualified under the Act, but yet the doctors of Christchurch, metaphorically of course, stand round and hoot and throw stones at him, just as much as when the uneducated son of toil meets what is technically called “ a rat,” and, in the expressive language of Sheffield, “ goes” for him. There is no difference really in the cases, only, as we have said, in the one case it is physical, and in the other moral, force that is used. But where is the difference between the creme de la creme of the professions and the United Society of Chimney Sweepers ? The objects are the same, viz., to keep up the wages and to put down all who would work under what the Society considers right. It is true that they arrive at their end by different means, and that the educated Trades Union can carry out the second object with an impunity which the less wily workman cannot, but it means exactly the same. By nods, as profound as Lord Burleigh, by half-expressed sentences conveying far more than outright sneers, and declining to mix with those who refuse to join their Society, the medical profession here have reproduced Trades Unionism in its worst form, and we must express our regret that such should be the case, and that a profession deservedly held in such high esteem should have descended so low, more especially when we consider that no point of professional nonour nor etiquette is concerned, but simply filthy lucre. How are the mighty fallen !

The announcement made by his Woiship the Mayor on Thursday evening, of his intention to resign his office as Councillor in September next, will, we feel sure, be received by all classes of the citizens with much regret. We have felt it our duty on more than one occasion in the interests of the ratepayers, to comment adversely upon some of the actions of the City Council; but we cannot withhold from expressing the opinion that in his double capacity as Mayor and Councillor, Mr. Hobbs has done great service for the city. As a Councillor he took a prominent and leading 1 ? part in the deliberations of the Council, and his votes and actions have always been influenced by a sincere desire to advance the prosperity of Christchurch, and to conserve to the utmost the interests of the ratepayers. In the more honourable but onerous position of twice elected Mayor, he has discharged ih ■ duties of his office with credit to himself and I

satisfaction to every class of the community. Under his rule the various works of the city have been carried on with a vigour and completeness, which, without wishing to undervalue the services of his predecessors, we have not had before. In carrying out the duties of his office his Worship has spared neither time, trouble, nor ex. pense, and we feel sure we are only expressing the unanimous feeling of the public when we say that we hope the determination he has arrived at is not irrevocable. The City Council of Christchurch has always, in spite of some little eccentricities held a very high position amongst the municipalities of the colony, and never more deservedly so than during the term of office of the present Mayor. Should, however, his Worship adhere to his determination to retire he will carry with him into private life the well earned respect and esteem of his fellow citizens, and he will quit office with the knowledge that he has not only worthily sustained the office of Mayor, but also that as a citizen he has done his duty.

lx the days of the barbarians, so graphically described by Mr. Charles Bright recently, there existed an idea that the Press was the palladium of liberty, always on the alert to redress wrongs and take up the cause of the oppressed. But in these enlightened days, and in this good city, this idea does not hold good. A short time back we commented upon the unjust and arbitrary manner in which the Government had acted in discharging the station-master at Sonthbridge for what even, had it been true, was but a trifling matter ; but being undeserved, was doubly an unjustice. There could be no doubt that a flagrant wrong had been done to an old and faithful servant of the public, and we therefore expected that some notice would have been taken of it by our morning contemporaries, but we were disappointed. The Press soaring above mere petty local politics devotes its space to a disquisition on the constitution of the Cape Colony, and the Lyttelton limes to a lengthened quotation from the Westminster Review on “ Loans.” We are sorry to see journalism in Canterbury at such a low ebb. Had such a case of hardship occurred elsewhere, the journals would have taken it up ere now and insisted on justice being done. Perhaps, however, we are doing our contemporaries injustice, and it may be that their ideas require lengthened reflection. If so, though late, we shall be glad to welcome them as allies in the cause of right against might.