The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-03-25
II Il
DIR. Awnings CASE.

Dr. +. Aiming may thank his injudi-
cious, if not insincere friends, for the
public criticism to which he is being
subjected. Personally the matter is ex-
ceedingly distasteful to US, but when
a gentleman permits himself and
his professional work to be used for
political effect, he must be prepared to
submit to criticism and rebuke. In our
article of Tuesday last we dealt with him
in as mild and temperate manner as
the serious character of his ofense would
admit of, and if his partisans had let the
matter rest there we should not have
said or written another word.
The case lies in a nutshell, so far as
it concerns the public. DIR. Aiming was
employed by the Board of Health to con-
duct experiments regarding the con-
tagium of leprosy, for which certain ia
cilities were placed at his disposal, in
volving considerable expense to the
Health Department. 1t was assumed
{ that his experiments would be concluded
within reasonable period-Dr. Hille-
brand. who recommended him, specified
nine months-but over two years had
ELAPSED, and Dr. Aiming had neither con-
cluded his experiments nor could he
form any idea whatever when they would
be in such condition as to enable him
to make final report.
Accordingly, when he informed the
Board OF Health to this effect, and
sketched his line OF investigation, he was
requested to state the result of his ex-
periments as far as they had advanced,
and to furnish the Board of Health with
duplicate photographs and casts OF leper
subjects, the originals of which he had
taken. The Board at the same time in
tinated that it would bear any additional
cost that might be involved. To this
reasonable request, compliance with
which an honest appreciation of service
rendered obligatory, DIR. Aiming replied
that the result of his investigations be-
lonoed to himself and not to the Govern
ment which paid him, and which furn-
ished him with the opportunity for in
vestioation and facilities to pursue it !;
and furthermore, fortified himself in his
refusal to do his lawful duty, by quoting
the opinion of three physicians to the
effect that he had furnished sufficient in
formation to ga lay Board of Health"
This was a dishonest shuttle, and we
are sorry TO see that DR.. Trousseau, one
of the three advisers of DIR. Aiming,
boldly yindicates it. To laymen, the
case is clear and indefensible. DR.. Arm
ing was paid by the Hawaiian Govern
meut to pursue a certain line of scientific
investioation ''for the welfare of the Ha-
waiian people," as DIR. Hilebrand
nbrased it. when recommending ais en-
nlovment for nine months; and he
coolly appropriated the result of his in
yestigation, reserving the right, at some
future time, to make it public in the in
terest of general science.
Now. this is simple question of hon
esty or dishonesty, not to put too fine
point upon it, and we regret to think that
while DR.. Aiming has not been quite hon
est in his relations toward the Board OF
Health to the extent noted, he has been
backed in his action by professional
gentlemen who could not plead youth
and inexperience in their defense, as he
might do on his own behalf.
Would any of the gentlemen consti
tuting the Committee of Interferen CO
with the Board of Health on Dr. Arm
ing's account, continue confidential
clerk in their employ who would act as
DIR. Aiming has done in this matter
And would they not consider his offense
intensified beyond the range OF forgive
ness if, in revenge for merited dismissal
the offender should print and circulate
matter pertaining to their business, with
out their knowledge or consent, and add
to this offense the publication OF extracts
from private letters without the authority
or knowledge of the writers which might
reflect upon their business integrity
Yet something similar to this has beer
done in this case, with the aggravation
that it is breach of official propriety and
of personal confidence which is always
sacred with gentlemen. We refer OF