View report page

30
4th June, 1913, I said:— "I would not advise you to accept any additional
responsibilities at any price likely to be paid by the Guardians."
About the beginning of July, Mr. Shelton informed the Enfield Council
that it was not intended to interfere with the existing agreement respecting cases
arising in the establishments belonging to the Guardians in Enfield, which is
that cases from this establishment are removed by the Enfield Council and
treated at the Joint Hospital at Winchmore Hill at the Guardians' expense.
Why should Edmonton not have the same ?
In a letter dated 23rd July, Mr. Shelton gave us formal notice to terminate
the existing agreement on the 25th December, 1913, and asked for the ratification
of the proposed agreement. The district authorities within the Union (except
Hornsey) discussed the subject at several meetings beginning on the 29th
September. On 29th September, at Wood Green, this resolution was
unanimously passed :—
"That this conference is of opinion that none of the urban sanitary
authorities whose areas of local government are situate within the
Edmonton Union would be justified in agreeing to the revised terras
suggested by the Guardians, and that the latter be requested to
withdraw the formal notice to determine the existing agreement
with a view to terms more acceptable to such authorities being
arranged."
A copy of this resolution was sent to the Guardians.
On the 10th October the Guardians replied to this resolution and declined
to withdraw their formal notice.
A second meeting of the conference was arranged to take place at Wood
Green on 17th November, 1913. Mr. Harding (Clerk of Wood Green) asked
the Guardians if they would consent to receive a small deputation from the
conference, and on the 13th November (per telephone), Mr. Shelton stated that
the Finance Committee would be prepared to meet them on the 18th November.
The conference ilecided not to meet merely a section of the Guardians.
Besides the question of transport from the institutions to the isolation
hospital, another difficulty is to decide upon the proper definition of the poor
persons who, suffering from infectious diseases, have a right to be treated at
the expense of the Guardians. The Guardians appear to wish to limit their
assistance to those poor people who are materially destitute, that is, devoid of
proper nourishment and clothing, but on the other band the Local Government
Board in a letter to the Hon. Secretary of the Middlesex Districts' Councils'
Association, dated 25th May, 1912, state that:—