The Director-General of Health forwards the following memorandum for advice:

By direction of the Minister for Health, it is desired to submit certain extracts from ‘The Daily Guardian’ of Sydney, which are attached hereto.

The facts in relation to the preparation of ‘Insulin’ at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are briefly as follows:

Communication of a theoretical nature was made to the Royal Society of Canada in May 1922, in which a method of preparing pancreatic extract was described, but its clinical application for the treatment of diabetes had not been tested. An abstract of this article was available in a periodical known as Chemical Abstracts towards the end of 1922 in Melbourne, and, at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the method was tried and an experimental batch was produced on 12th December, 1922.

In January, 1923, Dr. J. F. Wilkinson returned from Canada bringing with him a reprint of this article and a verbal report of his personal experience in seeing cases of diabetes treated with this extract with satisfactory results.

This was the first occasion on which information was available by the ordinary channels in Australia relating to the technique of the preparation and the first attempts at the use of a pancreatic extract for the treatment of diabetes.

Information had, however, been received earlier to the effect that patent rights had been taken out in respect of the process, and, on 21st November, 1922, a letter was sent to the holder of the patent rights asking for information as to the method of manufacture and for permission to use the process for commercial preparation in Australia.

On March 22nd, 1923, Professor Macleod of Toronto University, who, it is understood, was the original holder of the patent rights, cabled permission for the manufacture in Australia of this product for general use, confirming this by a letter despatched under the same date. Notwithstanding this delay, on 7th March a small amount of ‘Insulin’ was issued from the Laboratories for trial on one case, according to the original method which had been first described.

This method, however, was superseded by another method in February, 1923, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry–which was available at the Serum Laboratories on 16th April, 1923.

The work was put in hand by this new method and material was available by this method on 4th May, and, animal tests having shown that it gave satisfactory results, larger scale production was put in hand on 7th May, 1923, and a limited amount of ‘Insulin’ for use in the treatment of actual human patients was issued on 5th June.

Difficulties were encountered in sterilization and purification which have been surmounted only within the last fortnight, and large scale production was deferred until these difficulties had been overcome. Reports in the medical journals show that these difficulties were encountered also in England, and, so far as can be ascertained, ‘Insulin’ was not available for general distribution in England until approximately two months ago.

Since information reached Australia concerning the methods by which the difficulties had been overcome, a cabled request was sent to England for information as to the method and this was immediately cabled out from the High Commissioner’s Office.

It will be seen that the English Authorities were experiencing only two months ago the same difficulties that we have experienced here, and that, so soon as word was received that these difficulties had been overcome in England, steps were taken at this end to obtain the necessary information from England by the most rapid means.

It is necessary before dealing with the statements in ‘The Daily Guardian’ to mention also that ‘Insulin’ is not a cure for diabetes, but is merely a pancreatic extract which supplies a deficiency in secretions from the pancreas resulting from a diseased condition of certain portions of the pancreas, and, moreover, it is material to state that only a certain proportion of cases of diabetes can be controlled even by this method.

In the light of the above facts, attention is drawn to the following passages from the extracts submitted:

1. ‘Daily Guardian’, July 18th: with the legend ‘Federal Government Sloths’– ‘Watching Him Drown’.
2. Extract from ‘Daily Guardian’–July 19th; the last words of two Australians a day to be ‘Ave Cumpston! In death we salute thee!’
3. My alleged reply that the question asked was ‘absurd’. The facts in relation to this are that I received a telephone enquiry from the Melbourne representative of ‘The Daily Guardian’, stating that he had received a telegram from his office in Sydney instructing him to ask me–‘What would be the cost of curing a case of diabetes by “insulin”?’ My reply was that it was impossible to answer the question which was not a reasonable one, in as much as ‘Insulin’ was not a cure for diabetes, and that the cost depended entirely on the dosage which varied with the patient’s condition.
4. ‘Daily Guardian’ 4th July: ‘Every day the Commonwealth Health Department …takes toll of valuable life.’
5. ‘Daily Guardian’ 6th July: ‘…it’s colossal and criminal stupidity …’ and the heading–‘While Cumpston Delays : Nine-Year-Old Boy Perishes.’
6. ‘Daily Guardian’ 6th July: ‘Not one injection of “insulin” has been made available to those facing death’. A reference to the above statement of the position will show this to be untrue.
7. ‘Daily Guardian’ 5th July: ‘It is not to be expected that Dr Cumpston should regard them as so many bereavements.’ ‘Such a word as “compassion” is not to be found in the lexicon of the medical employees of the people.’ ‘It certainly seems to be missing from the vocabulary of Dr Cumpston …’

These specific extracts and the general tenor of the articles are such as to state clearly that either I, personally, or the Department is responsible for the deaths of two people a day by our criminal stupidity or neglect, and that we are unconcerned by the deaths of persons whose deaths might have been prevented if we had taken certain action.

These statements would be serious enough as applied to any individual, but, as applied to a Public Health Department which exists to prevent disease and death, the importance of the allegations is increased.

It is necessary to mention that there is missing from the attached extracts a report of one interview with myself, in which the facts in relation to the preparation of ‘Insulin’ were stated in a general way and a protest was made against the exploitation by the press of the news value of newly announced remedies for human diseases. A copy of this is being obtained but is not yet available.

I am instructed by the Minister to request you to be good enough to advise generally as to the position with respect to the prosecution of the publishers for libel and the possibility, in view of the above facts and the legal position generally, of a successful result from such a prosecution.

Further, it is suspected that this agitation is being engineered by certain importing commercial firms who produce and sell preparations of a nature similar to those produced and sold by the Department’s Laboratories, and I am instructed by the Minister to request that you arrange for a confidential enquiry by the Investigation Branch of your Department, in order to obtain any evidence in this regard. It would probably be advisable for the officer directing the investigation to consult with me before taking action.

I should be obliged if this matter might be treated as urgent.

There can be no libel of a Department, but only of a person.

The question in this case is whether any of the cuttings submitted contain libels against Dr. Cumpston.

In my opinion, some of the articles do contain such libels.

The latter portion of the article from ‘The Guardian’ of 4th July is libellous.

It is headed : ‘Dr Cumpston’s Companion’, refers to his ‘callous officialdom’, and suggests that his administration is responsible for many persons dying whose lives might have been saved.

The paragraphs in the issue of July 5th, under the heading ‘Deaths that need not occur’, contain libellous matter. Most of the paragraphs are based on Dr. Cumpston’s alleged answer that an inquiry as to the cost of insulin was ‘absurd’.

Dr. Cumpston’s version of question and answer is of course entirely different; but I do not think that these paragraphs of themselves make a strong case, though they can be relied on as tending to show the malicious character of the other statements. But the statement, that the word ‘compassion’ seems to be missing from the vocabulary of Dr. Cumpston, the paragraph beginning: ‘Dr. Cumpston knows there is a cure at hand to save them’, and the three following paragraphs are, I think, libellous. The phrases ‘a continuing crime against humanity’ and ‘indifferent to the lives of its citizens’ are carefully worded to apply literally to the Commonwealth Government, Dr. Cumpston’s name being brought in in connection with the charge of callousness in not making information available; but I think the whole context implies Dr. Cumpston’s responsibility for the ‘crime against humanity’.

The paragraph of 6th July, headed: ‘While Cumpston delays–Nine-year-old boy perishes’, is clearly libellous.

The cartoon of 18th July, ‘Watching him drown’, does not name Dr. Cumpston; but the inscription ‘Federal Medical Sloths’, when read in connection with the other extracts, justifies the inference that the allusion is to him.

The article of 19th July, concluding with the words ‘Ave Cumpston! In death we salute thee!’ is libellous.

A libel is a ground either for a civil action or for a criminal prosecution. That is to say, it is both a private wrong and a public offence.

The text-books, in regard to its aspect as a public offence, base this on the ground that a libel tends to provoke a breach of the peace.

It is as a public offence that the Commonwealth Government is concerned with it.

In the case of a libel against a public officer, in connection with his public duties, it is for the Government in each case to determine whether it will institute criminal proceedings; and presumably, where the libel is clear, the guiding questions for consideration of the Government would be whether it is expedient, in the particular case, to protect the officer in this way. That is, of course, a question of policy.

The offence is an indictable one, under State law.

In a recent case of an alleged libel by an Adelaide newspaper against the Commandant of a Military Camp, the Department laid an information, and the publisher has been committed for trial.

I think that in the present case, if a prosecution were instituted, there would be a good prospect of a conviction.

[Vol. 20, p. 98]