MOUNT COOK SITE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 81, 5 April 1930, Page 10

MOUNT COOK SITE

CHANGE OPPOSED VIEWS OF LARGE SUBSCRIBERS REPLY TO INSTITUTE Statements by some of the chief subscribers to the Museum and Art Gallery Fund show that a storm of protest would arise on the first serious hint of a change in the site, not that this is at all likely. "If they shift the site from Mount Cook," said Mr. R. Hannah, one of the largest subscribers, "I would claim the right to withdraw my subscription." Sir Harold Beauchamp, another of the most generous donors, when asked for his views, said: "AVhcn the movement was initiated for the erection of a Dominion Museum and Art Gallery in AVellington, I was strongly of the opinion that the best site available was that immediately behind Parliamentary Buildings, where the present Museum stands, provided that it was feasible to obtain the land then owned by the late Mr. AY. G. Mantel!. Strong opposition, however, was raised by the Government, and I at once saw the futility of attempting to acquire that site. Later, when the Government offered the Mount Cook site, and agreed to provide £100,----000 towards the cost of the buildings, provided that an equal sum was raised by the citizens, I joined in the movement to acquire that site, and, with .the Mayor, entered on an active campaign to raise tho money to carry out the requirements of the Government. The success of that appeal is wejl known. All the subscribers whom we approached were of the opinion that the Mount Cook site would be tho ideal one. provided that the approaches to it were improved in the manner that has been already described by the Mayor. "A THOUSAND PITIES." "I think it is a thousand pities that after such a considerable lapse of time, opposition is now raised by the New Zealand Institute. As the Mayor pointed out in an interview yesterday, the institute appears to have been in a somnolent condition, but, like Rip Van AVinkle, has awakened at last from its slumbers. It would, I think, bo most unwise to indulge in any shilly-shally-ing, and wo should concentrate our energies in carrying out the scheme whicli has been placed before the public, namely, to erect these buildings on the Mount Cook site which, in the opinion of so many citizens, is the ideal one. It is obvious we must keep faith with our subscribers, who, if this scheme was departed from, would be within their rights to demand tho return of their subscriptions. " . The chairman of the AVellington AVar Memorial Carillon Society said that he thought tho Mayor had given the proper reply. The suggestion which had been made was not worth any further notice. FOR EVERYBODY. A gentleman who has worked perhaps harder than most for the £100,000 raised, placed other aspects of the position before a "Post" reporter. '' Those who presented the case to the Minister assumed that a museum was entirely for a-few scientists," ho said. "What about' tho people of New Zealand? Did tho Mayor of AVellington collect the money for the scientists or for the people? To what extent did the scientists themselves help in the collection of the money'? Apart from periodical visits to the Minister by tho institute years ago, nothing has been done by them to got,the project before tho Government or the people. _ At one •of the public meetings called by the Mayor and largely attended, the question was raised as to how much should bo spent on the Museum and how much on. the Art Gallery, and it was stated by one present that so far as his subscription went, it was wholly for the Art Gallery, and the bulk of the-sub-scribers undoubtedly felt likewise. Museums do not appeal to the general public in tho same way as art galleries do. NOT FIFTY-FIFTY NOW. "The meeting decided by resolution that the money should be equally divided, spent on a 'fifty-fifty' basis. The temporary trustees have departed from this, however, and I note that now they propose to spend £95,000 on the Museum and £75,000 on the Art Gallery, leaving £30,000 for architects' fees, extras, and other incidentals. I question whether the committee had any right to act in this manner. They should have abided by the expressed wish of those at the. public meeting, that the money should be divided between the two objects. AVhcn the late Prime Minister (Mr. Coates) promised the site and the £100,000 subsidy, he' made no conditions whatever to the Mayor as to the allocation of the subsidy, or how the money was to be expended. Naturally, he felt that that was a matter for the contributors."