341

Colonial List of the Medical Register, the Council hadbeen informed that reciprocity would lapse on anyrefusal to register a class of practitioners whose namesappeared on the Medical Register of the UnitedKingdom.

Colonel R. A. Needham, officially appointed toinspect Indian Universities and Colleges of Medicine,having been refused admission to the final examinationsof Calcutta University, the University authorities hadbeen informed that, in the absence of a report on theseexaminations, recognition by the G.M.C. of the medicaldegreesof that Universitywould cease onNov.30th.next.

In regard to the proposed Articles of Association ofthe Society of Radiographers, the Committee resolvedto inform the Board of Trade of their strong objectionto the last paragraph in Article 27 which proposed toentrust to an unqualified person the duty on his ownresponsibility of making and reporting a diagnosis ofdisease or injury to patients or others.

The ServicesROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.

Lt,.-Col. A. A. Seeds retires on ret. pay.Capts. to be Majs. : R. B. Price (Prov.), J. B. A. Wigmore

{Prov.), J. Hare (Prov.), R. A. Flood (Prov.), E. C. Lang(Prov.), L. T. Poole (Prov.), C. C. Jones (Prov.), E. V.Whitby, E. U. Russell (Prov.), R. G. Shaw, N. T. Whitehead{and remains seed.), J. C. Sproule (Prov.), A. F. C. Martyn,G. F. Allison (Prov.), R. C. Carlyle (Prov.) (and remainsseed.), A. A. M. Davies, Bt. Maj. L. Dunbar, and Bt. Maj.H. F. Panton (Prov.). ).

Capt. J. E. Brooks is restd. to the estabt.Capt. J. W. Cannon retires receiving a gratuity.Lt. M. A. Graham-Yooll is restd. to the estabt.

TERRITORIAL ARMY.

G. H. R. Gibson (late Canadian Army Med. Corps) to beCaptain ; W. M. Farr, J. J. Mitchell, I. Morgan, and F. A.Smorntt to be Lts. ; Hon. Lt. 0. F. W. Robinson to be Lt.

DEATHS IN THE SERVICES.We regret to announce the death of Colonel Reginald

James Cope Cottell, C.B.E., R.A.M.C., on August 7th, aftera prolonged illness borne with cheerful fortitude. The fourthson of Major James William Cottell, H.E.I.C.S., he wasborn at Rodborough, Gloucestershire, in October, 1858.He studied medicine at St. George’s Hospital and obtainedthe Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons of Englandin 1886, having in the previous year become a Licentiate ofthe Society of Apothecaries. Immediately after qualifyinghe obtained a commission in the Royal Army Medical Corpsand was subsequently stationed in Natal. He servedthroughout the South African War, 1899-1902, and receivedfor his services the Queen’s Medal and the King’s Medal, bothwith three clasps. After serving in the Mediterranean he wasappointed in 1906 assistant surgeon to the Royal Hospital,Chelsea, and some four years later physician and surgeon,positions which he held for three years. On the outbreak ofthe war he was put in charge of the recruiting stationsin London and from 1915 to 1919 was commandant of KingGeorge’s Hospital. In 1918 he was made a Knight of Graceof the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and in 1919 was awardedthe C.B.E. (Military). He also received the rank of Brevet-Colonel. Colonel Cottell, who leaves a widow and threedaughters, possessed a high sense of duty and was a verypopular and competent officer.

GOVERNMENT publications on health matters arenot yet as readily accessible at H.M. Stationery Officeas they might be. Application for the Interim Reporton Preservatives in Food, noticed in another column,was met by the statement that it was " not yet out."Application for Circular 1337 of the Board of Educationdealing with the closure of schools during epidemics,and giving the consensus of medical opinion on thispractice, was met by the rejoinder " not on sale."Application for the white paper on the Cost of HealthServices, issued a week or two ago, elicited the state-ment that the document was" out of print." Whethertoo early, or too late, or ineligible, the inquirer maybe prevented from satisfying laudable curiosity aboutmatters of great moment to the health of the com-munity. The attempt to purchase the publications Iwas made on Tuesday morning, August 12th.

Medicine and the Law.The Payment of Witness Fees to Medical Officers.

AT the last meeting before the summer recess

the London County Council reached an importantdecision regarding the fees payable to medicalofficers of asylums, hospitals, and institutions forperforming post-mortem examinations and givingevidence at coroners’ inquests. Shortly expressed,the decision of the Council is to abolish paymentaltogether.

Section 22 of the Coroners Act, 1887, providesfor payment of a fee of 2 guineas to private practi-tioners in this connexion. Under Subsection 2,however, no fee is payable when the deceased hasdied in a " county or other lunatic asylum, or in apublic hospital, infirmary, or other medical institu-tion," whether supported by endowments or byvoluntary subscriptions. Notwithstanding this pro-vision, fees have not been withheld from medicalofficers of workhouses and Poor-law institutions,but the attention of the L.C.C. has been directed tothe question by a district auditor, who recently tookexception to certain witness fees paid to medicalofficers of hospitals controlled by the MetropolitanAsylums Board. One such medical officer, onbeing asked to refund the fee, refused to do so, andthe Public Control Committee took the view thatit was " inequitable that a medical officer whohappened to be employed in a certain type of publiclymaintained institution should be receiving a fee,whereas another medical officer performing analogousduties and practically in a similar position shouldnot be so paid." The Minister of Health was con-sulted by the Council, but declined to express anyopinion on the matter. The district auditor on

June 16th drew the Council’s attention to the factthat, on the advice of eminent counsel, Poor-lawunion infirmaries had not hitherto been regarded ascoming within the prohibition of the Act. Hepointed out, however, that in recent years thecharacter of these infirmaries had undergone a con-sidera,ble change, and that in many instances theywere in no way inferior to the best general hospitals.He had, therefore, decided that inquest fees werenot payable to medical officers of " hospitals con-trolled by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, Poor-law infirmaries, general infirmaries, prisons, or othermedical institutions of a public character." In hisopinion such payments, if made, were illegal and animproper charge on the Council’s funds. The LondonCounty Council has accepted this ruling and fixedSept. lst next as the date of discontinuance ofthe payments. The resolution passed by the Councilwas in the following terms:-"That, as from 1st September, 1924, the payment to

medical officers of hospitals controlled by the MetropolitanAsylums Board, workhouses, Poor-law infirmaries, prisons,and other medical institutions of a public character, offees under Section 22 of the Coroners Act, 1887, for makingpost-mortem examinations and giving evidence at inquestsheld in the County of London be discontinued."

The Home 5ecrelary’s Decision i2 Cases ofMurder.

The Right Hon. Edward Shortt, who has hadexperience of the responsibility of the Home Secretaryin granting or withholding reprieves, where murderershave been sentenced to death, contributed recently tothe Daily F,.rpress an article recommending that theprocedure should be altered and that the final decisionon such occasions should rest with a committee.

Probably the duty, which in the present circumstancesthe Home Secretary performs alone, is one of whichmost men would gladly be relieved, and the suggestionthat a committee should undertake it is not a new one,and is quite likely some day to be considered by

Parliament. Mr. Shortt, however, has made a definiteproposal that the committee should be composed of the

342

Home Secretary, the Lord Chief Justice, and the judgewho tried the convicted person. This seems a com-bination open to objections, particularly with regardto the judge who tried the case. Moreover, if such acommittee is ever instituted it should include a

member of the medical profession of recognisedeminence. He would not necessarily, or desirably,be an alienist or one connected with any special branchof medicine. Prisoners are reprieved upon medicalgrounds of varying nature. For example, True wasreprieved on the ground of his mental condition ; Mrs.Mavbrick and others have been sentenced and notexecuted on account of questions relating to theprecise cause of the death of the person alleged to havebeen murdered. If such a committee as that suggestedshould ever be formed, there would certainly bemany occasions upon which a medical man wouldmaterially assist his colleagues in the weighing ofmedical evidence.

Coroners and JIurder or -1-laitslauflhter.

Sir Harry Poland, in a letter to the Times, hasmade a suggestion that when an inquest is being heldby a coroner and a prosecution takes place at the sametime in a criminal court for murder or manslaughter.the same death forming the subject of the prosecutionand of the inquest, the inquest should be suspendeduntil the criminal proceedings have been concluded.A proposal coming from so eminent an authority onthe practical working of the criminal law commandsrespect, and no doubt full consideration will be givento Sir Harry Poland’s suggestion whenever (or ifever) the long-delayed amendment of the law relatingto inquests takes place. He cites the report of aRoyal Commission in 1879, which said that " theproceeding upon coroner’s inquisitions is a relic of thetimes preceding the appointment of justices of thepeace." His strongest argument against the dualproceedings, in the coroner’s court and before magis-trates, which precede trial at assizes, is that the timeof witnesses is taken up unnecessarily. Medical

practitioners who have had to give evidence on suchoccasions will be aware how many valuable hours arewasted in waiting about on these occasions, in additionto the possibly brief period of time which is spent inthe witness-box. The time of experts is no lesswasted in repeating the same evidence which againhas to be given later. All these should be thoroughly iin sympathy with the proposed alteration, and it willbe interesting to see what legal critics may have to sayon the subject. They are aware of the anomaliesattaching to inquest verdicts and proceedings. In therecent case of Vaquier the coroner’s jury found averdict which left open the question of who had placedthe poison in the bottle from which the dead man tookthe fatal draught, and this was employed as an argu-ment by some of those persons who advocatedthe Frenchman’s reprieve. That it has had no effecton Vaquier’s ultimate fate tends to show that theverdict at an inquest is of little value. At the inquestupon Miss Kaye letters were read from the deceased toher friends which could not have been made evidenceat Mahon’s trial, which suggests that an inquest mayprejudice a prisoner when tried for his life, owing tothe publication of matter not relevant to his guilt.In fact, in the case of Mahon a letter of similarcharacter to those read at the inquest led to newspaperswhich published it being fined for " contempt ofcourt." The gravity of the penalty attaching tomurder may be urged as an argument for retaining thetriple hearing, but it seems doubtful whether that is areason of such weight that it ought to prevail. Thefact of coroners not being responsible for inquiries inobvious cases of murder would do away with anyargument against the appointment of medical men inpreference to lawyers, and the medical man ofexperience would show himself the best person toinquire into all unexplained deaths, including thosewhich through his investigation may turn out tohave been due to criminal acts. Sir Harry Poland’ssuggestion has much to commend it.

A Secret Well Kept.In a case committed for trial at Rotherham, the

prisoner being charged with concealment of birthafter the finding of the dismembered body of an infant,observations were made by counsel upon the conductof a medical man, Dr. W. L. Dibb, and of a deputycoroner, to the effect that they had not assisted thepolice in elucidating the case. Dr. Dibb, in par-ticular, had given no information to the police as towhat he knew or suspected with regard to the remainswhich had been submitted to him. In explanationof this, at the close of his evidence before the magis-trates, Dr. Dibb made a statement to the effect that,finding himself in the possession of certain informa-tion, he had consulted a solicitor as to the course heshould adopt, and the solicitor had expressed a wishto take counsel’s opinion before expressing himselfdefinitely. The witness had also consulted a seniorpractitioner at Rotherham and a consultant at

Sheffield, who had agreed that he ought not to makea statement to the police. In the witness-box Dr. Dibbhad given evidence, after having heard authoritiescited by counsel, which were to the effect thathe could not refuse to do so. He appears to haveacted perfectly correctly, both in giving evidencewhen in the witness-box and when the court refusedto absolve him from the obligation to give it, -andin not going out of his way to make statements tothe police before. He also acted wisely in takingadvice on the subject from those best qualified toassist him and in acting on their recommendations.The kind of circumstances, in which he evidentlyfound himself involved, are such as may occur inthe practice of any medical man. A doctor is notat law absolved owing to his profession from theordinary duties of a citizen to assist in the adminis-tration of justice if called upon to do so. No medicalman, however, will admit that because his professionbrings him in contact with, what may be a " guiltysecret," his duty as a citizen calls upon him to playthe detective and assist the police in any and everycase in which he suspects the past or future perpetra-tion of a criminal act by his patient. He must beguided to some extent by the facts of the particularcase, and it may be suggested as an example thatif he has reason to believe that the life of a humanbeing is threatened, or that murder has been com-mitted, he is placed in a very different position fromthat of merely suspecting that a patient may havebeen connected with an offence against property.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE IN ENGLAND AND WALESDURING THE WEEK ENDED AUGUST 2ND, 1924.- /Vo<t/tcoHHoMS.&mdash;The following cases of infectious disease

were notified during the week, namely :-Small-pox, 36 ;scarlet fever, 1330 ; diphtheria, 663; enteric fever, 94 ;pneumonia, 458 ; puerperal fever, 37 : cerebro-spinal fever,2 ; acute poliomyelitis, 27 ; acute polio-encephalitis, 4 ;encephalitis lethargica, 68 ; dysentery, 6 ; ophthalmianeonatorum, 108. Of the ca,ses of ophthalmia 12 werereported from the County of London. 3 from West Hartlepool,2 from Easington R.D. (co. Durham), 5 from Liverpool,4 from Newcastle-on-Tyne, 4 from Stoke-on-Trent, 12 fromBirmingham, 7 from Sheffield ; 6 from. the boroughs antiurban districts of Glamorga,n-namely, Aberdare, Caerphilly,Ogmore and Garw, Port Talbot (each 1), and Rhondda (2).

Deaths.--In the aggregate of great towns (includingLondon) there were 6 deaths from enteric fever, 9 fromscarlet fever, 21 from diphtheria, 22 from measles, and 15 frominfluen za. In London itself the diphtheria deaths nmubered 8.

THE LATE DR. R. T. JONES.&mdash;Dr Richard ThomasJones, L.R.F.P.S. Glasg. and L.S.A. Lond, who recently diedat his residence in Harlech, Merionethshire, began to practisein 1879. He received his medical education at OwensCollege, Manchester, and at Guv’s Hospital, London, andsettled in Wales, where he worked for 45 years. He was oneof the first medical men in the Principality to advocate totalabstinence on which subject he wrote several pamphlets.He was medical officer and public vaccinator for theLlanfihangel district of the Festiniog Union. For over30 years he was district magistrate and was also High Sheriffof Merioneth. -