1.—7.

12

FE. C. FOUNTAIN.

always understood the company was run by a qualified dentist, but that they employed men who were not registered to carry on the work in different branches. 188. How many would be admitted all over the colony if the term were made three years?— I have not the slightest idea. 189. Would it be twenty? —I could not say. 190. Mr. Ell."] Have you been practising dentistry in every department of the profession — extracting, filling, and so forth? —Yes. 191. For a period of five years? —I have been practising seven years. 192. And your brother in the same way? —My brother has been practising for twelve }'ears. 193. You say that the medical profession in Christchurch will administer anaesthetics for you, notwithstanding the decision of the Medical Association to the contrary? —Yes; some of them will not abide by the decision —prominent doctors too. 194. You said in your statement, " the New Zealand Consolidated Dental Company, which is carried on by the shareholders—the shareholders being the dentists of New Zealand." What is the company? Is it a supply company? —It supplies us with goods and material. 195. With the requisites for the business? —Yes. 196. You say that the company has unregistered men as members of it? —Yes; my brotherhas five shares. 197. What registered men are in it? —I do not all of them, but there are a number. 198. There are registered men in the company and they admit unregistered men? —Yes, as shareholders. 199. Were you apprenticed to any dentist at all? —I was apprenticed to Mr. Biggs. 200. How long were you with him? —Three years. 201. Do you know whether your brother was apprenticed to any man? —He, too, was apprenticed to Mr. Biggs. He was apprenticed in the first place to a man named Chatfield, in Auckland, but was dismissed before his time was up. 202. Was Mr. Chatfield a registered qualified dentist? —Yes, one of the oldest dentists in Auckland. 203. Did you pay any premium? -I paid £30. 204. Do you know what your brother paid? —I think he paid Mr. Chatfield either £50 or £70, but lam not sure. He did not pay Mr. Biggs anything. 205. You want to be permitted to go on practising as you have done hitherto? —Yes. 206. The Chairman.] You have read the Bill? —Yes. 207. What different position does it place you in from the old Act? —We have been allowed to put up " dentistry," " dental surgery," " London Dental Company," or anything like that, but under clause 21 we shall not be able to. If the clause were passed we should practically have to shut up altogether. 208. But does not the old Act provide for that too? Will you read it, please? [Act handed to witness.] Is there any difference between the old Act and this Bill with regard to your practising? —Yes, there is. 209. I would like you to point it out to the Committee? Do you not think it is this way: that under the old Act steps were not taken to enforce the law, and that therefore you were allowed to practise dentistry? —Do you mean that we should be thrown out? 210. What I want to know is, why you think you would be thrown out under this Bill when the conditions are just the same under the old Act? —Since reading the clause in the old Act and clause 21 of the Bill just now I must admit that I have read the Act wrongly heretofore. The Bill makes it harder for us to practise, but it does not, as far as I can see, altogether exclude us from practising. Still, it makes it very much harder. 211. Under the old Act you could not sue for fees? —No. 212. And this Bill would keep you in the same position in that respect? —Yes. 213. Mr. Ell.] You cannot sue for fees now —you recognise that? —That is so. 214. The Chairman.] As far as that is concerned there is no alteration?— No. 215. The only alteration is with regard to your calling yourselves dentists? —Yes; under the Bill we could not put up anything at all to say that we were practising. 216. Do you reckon that would destroy your practice?—lt would help to do so to a certain extent. People might pass by the door and not know that we were there. 217. It would not take away any of your old patients? —No; but we have to look for new patients. We put in, say, a set of teeth, and the patient does not want any more teeth when he has got a set. We have to look to new patients. 218. As far as the Bill is concerned it is only a question of degree—it does not destroy the business of the unregistered men ? —Not wholly and solely.

Thursday, 4th August, 1904. Dr. William Ernest Lowe examined. (No. 6.) 1. The Chairman.] I understand, doctor, that you are practising dentistry in Wellington?— Yes. 2. You are a registered dentist? —Yes. 3. Are you acquainted with the Bill before us? —Yes. 4. If you will give us your views upon it we shall be glad to hear them, and members of the Committee can then ask you questions?— Yes. I might say, gentlemen, that in the main I think the' Bill is a step in the direction in which a want has been felt for a very great while. It places dental education on a footing which is likely to be of great value to the public and to the profes-