The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1886. THE ACCLIMATISATION QUESTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1360, 2 October 1886, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1886. THE ACCLIMATISATION QUESTION.

Not only has the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society taken an exceedingly unwise course in refusing to recognise the Ashburton Branch Society or to accept of its assistance in carrying out the work for which both have been established, but the manner of that refusal is still more to be deprecated than the refusal itself. Such language as that used by Mr Boys, at the meeting of the Council of the Parent Society, is, for instance, utterly unjustifiable and indeed nothing short ot an insult. He is reported to have said that “ he considered the action of those gentlemenl at Ashburton [the promoter- of the branch Society] as little better than a swindle , in view of the fact that the Parent Society had spent so much money toacclimatisefish,etc, in that district,” while Mr Spackman followed this up by saying that they (the gentlemen referred to by Mr Boys) “ had formed a Society without the knowledge of this (the Parent) Society and had taken action to obtain revenue Jot themselves which should belong to this (the Parent) Society.” Now these statements are, we think we can show conclusively, absolutely contrary to fact, fer in the letter addressed to the President and members ot the Canterbuty Society, under date soih September, and signed by Mr Walker, President, Mr Crisp, Secretary, and Messrs Shury and C. C. Fooks, members of the Committee of the Ashburton Society, and which was published in extenso in our issue of the 241 b, it was distinctly stated that the local Society did not wish to lav claim to the fees but was quite willing that, after defraying the necessary expenses of rangers,etc (which are now defrayed by th e Parent Society), those fees, or the remaining balance ol the fees, should go into the funds of that Society. The passage referred to was in the following terms :—“ As regards the fees, we do not desire to raise the question to which Society shall those received from licenses issued to anglers within this county go. All we desire is tbs t the necessary appointment of rangers and other expenses for protection may be defrayed. So long as the balance is expended in pisciculture, in the results of which we should claim ov r share, we should be quite contented”. 'Phis absolutely and completly refutes the charge so recklessly made by Mr Spackman, that the Ashburton Society desired to obtain revenue for themselves which should belong to the Parent Society, and a similarly complete refutation also appears in the correspondence with regard to the other part of Mr Spackraan’s complaint, viz., that the action taken for the formation ol the Ashburton Society was taken “ without the knowledge of the parent Society.” For in Mr Fan’s letter, in reply to that from which the abovequoted extract is taken, occurs the following:—“ My suggestion to Mr Shury was this,—-‘Would it not be

well to form an auxiliary branch to our Society at Ashburton, ;in order to have a local control over all mailers connected with the Society in the district?’ ” Surely Mr Spademan does not mean to say that the Council of the Parent Society whollyignores its own Secretarj! ]f not, then assuredly it cannot plead ignorance of action suggested by that officer. The fret is that the charges made by the Canterbury Council are as utterly unfounded as the terms used in formulating them are unjustifiable and insulting. “Little better than a swindle” is language such as no body of gentlemen should apply to another similar body, and is calculated to provoke'anything but the retort courteous. We regret exceedingly the feeling that has been displayed over this matter, which could easily be settled to the satisfaction of both parties if, instead of meeting the promoters of the branch Society in a spirit of hostility, the Council of the parent Society displayed the slightest desire to come to a friendly Arrangement. The attitude of the latter is the more strange, and incongruous in that the Council is supposed to be the tutelary genius of what is usually described as the “ gentle art.” For notwithstanding theold proverbthat “ ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes ernollit mores nec simt esse feros,” the manners of the Council are remarkable for anything but softness and may justly be character s j d as very rude indeed.