Ip anything could make us regret having drawn public attention to the charges brought by Dr. Jamieson against the Health Department of the Mauioipal Council, it would be the fact that our article has tempted Dr. Macleod to write such a letter as we publish from im elsewhere. We have often observed, not without amusement, that in the of some persons " impartiality means agreeing wilh everybody all round, and that, directly any one considers that a reflection has been cast upon him, the writer has committed the grave sin of being partinl, No sensible and fairly judging man could have read into our article aug such attacks as those from which Dr. Macleod, with more seal than discretion, seeks to defend his partner, The case is perfectly simple, A medical man brings certain grave and deliberate charges against a public department, and, in a crowded public meeting, details certain Uhings which he says he hus 1 Now either Dr. Jamieson did see ho snys he saw or he did not, His statements are either true or une true. Wede not imagine that Dr, Neil Macleod or anybody else in Shanghai believes that De, Jamieson drow upon his imagination, and deliberately stated that which he knew to be fuise. If any grounds for such a suspicion existed, ald have been advanced at once, terests of those who were nttacked. To say that the speaker on that occasion intentionally overstated the truth, and that he has been in the habit of intentionally overstating it during all the years that he has ed the Customs Medion! Reporte, is virlunlly to apply an epithet to him not usual among gentlemen, Dr. Jamies sows speech caused what may be onlied 4 sensation, and no doubt coutribated very materially towards the unanimity with which Resolution IX was passed, No one called in question whut be said 5 no one, certainly, had the bad taste to accuse the epenker of being actuated by unworthy personal feelings towards the Health Officer, This has been reserved for the Health Officer's partner, andeans not be too deeply regretted, We have nothing to do with professional jealousies, and deprecate the introduction of any such element into the discussion, The gist of our article upon the subject was simply this: The charges are either true or false, Not having been rebatted, and resting, as they do, upon the testimony of an eye-witness, they must be considered trae, Who, then, is to blame for the delinquency that has been exposed? Dr. Macleod thinks we mean that Dr, Henderson is to blue, and immediately accuses us of "attacking" both that gentleman and the Council, The accusation is not one against which weearotodefend ourselves, We write in the interest of the public, and are utterly impervious to the ill.jndged nations levelled at us by Dr. Muc-If these things exist, somebody es lo blame; we do not know who it is, but it certainly ig some one connected with the Health Department of the Council, and all Dr. Macleod's professional fellow-feeling will not con. vince sensible people to the contrary.
is letter proves tithing, except that a very able phy: may be a very bad advocate, If any of our renders have been misled by what Dr. Macleod has written, let them read once more the very cautious and impartial een tences which conclude the article he so mach lamente,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.