THE ARCHITECTS' BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 197, 19 August 1913, Page 7

THE ARCHITECTS' BILL.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Will you kindly give mc space in your va.luu.bJe columns to make some observations on this bill? 1 think its provisions highly objectionable on the ground that it is another attempt in curtailment of liberty (we have too much of that already. The bill is conceived wholly in the interest of a. close association, and very much against the interest of the general public, and especially against the poor man struggling to get a home of his own. The architects axe asking 'Parliament to protect them • against ■fche competition, of the builders! The builders might as well invoke the aid of Parliament to protect them against the competition of each other. One is justifiable and as reasonable sis tine other, and if an architect cannot hold ! hie ow-n on his own merits, foe would do well to retire, try something else, and nt>t seek the aid of the law to protect him. If It is a question of qualification, let mc ask: What a.re the credentials of many of the members of tflie Architects' Association? What examination, what tests hare they passed: amd what have they done to euttitte them to prevent builders (perhaps infinitely het-ter men than themselves) from using their knowledge and experience for tlteir own and •the public's benefit?

There aire •builders who knew the nature and properties of materials, the principles of construction, and possessing a knowledge of the various orders of architecture before some of the architects 63-w the liight: and the»e men are justly indignant at mere tyros in the profession seeking to impose such dis- , abilities upon. them. The truth is, Sir. in many instances, the builders teach the architects. Some of the latter would . have come poorly off without the builder's assistance; that is well known. Now. with regard to the builders as architects let us see. Ta.ke some of the local architects • as examples. Mr. T. Mahoney's father , was st builder. Mr. Ed. Bartley, Mr. John Curric, Mr. Thomas May, were all builders -and many others; but these will suffice and 1 ask pardon for taking liberties with their names. Who is to •say that there are none left among the builders equally competent? And if there aire would the title of architect add to their merit 1 It is the man that counts, and nut the name, or what he chooses to call himself. As a matter of fact,'the man brought up in the buildings—other things being equal—makes the soundest, and best architect, because he gets the practical knowledge. A raw boy goinc to learn •arc-hitec-birre loams to make plans. to copy; plans out of lK>ok- etc.. but he i never (he constructor's skill j that the other man has. and therefore , •he is always, in -chat respect, at a. great | ; disadvantage. Let no one suppose that I 11 am to depreciate ot belittle | i the architect's profession-, or that | I do not hold the capable architect in j •the highest esteem. That is not the | point at all. The question is: Can the j architects affirm that theiT bill is con-, ecived wholly in the public interest— J that every member of their Institute is j capable and trustworthy, and that every man who is content to remsiin just, a , buihleT is incavaWo an<l untrustworthy? j If the answer is yes. then the hill might j be accepted. But we all know the answer must be no. And it follows that the architects have no case. Their claims ire unrea-s-rm-abV.and partake far too much of the spirit of the labour hc**»e* — unless you join our union, neither shall you live. The architects should know better than that. _ They would he wW to Teeonsider their position (it is quite unt enable 1 and withdraw their bill. Anyway. the Reform Government (which T think stands for iustice *nd riffht. according to its light') would not pa-s's such ■■> measure. The, only danger w'-th rerairH to both Govern- | merit and Parliament is from darknw. j and =o we want lisbt. tV* letter. With all due re-spc.t +n the ,-vchitects.— I am. etc.. WM. PHTLCOX. 1 TPOI'BI.K! 5 OF»\ H\CK BLOCK . TEACTTKR. (To lie Kditor.) Sir,—l have read with interest a few scraps of information about the controversy re teachers' salaries, and have. not seen any plea on .behalf of the Grade | I. school teachers, and I would esteem, jit a favour if you would publish this letter. I myself, for particular reason.-,, [have nothing to spin hy any increase in the salaries allotted to this grade, but as I have seen nothing about them mentioned in the proposals. 1 feel that it is probably because most of the grade 1. teachers are in such outlandish places that the only news they get comes wrapped round a stray parcel. 1 wish to give a* 'briefly as possible situations I have been in. without claiming to he either a hero or martyr. My last school was 20 miles from a railway, and the roads were very bad. When 1 arrived no one would provide accommodation, f had the option of a tent or •■baching" in the school- 1 declined. The alternative was to ride 4J miles daily from the nearest township, and feed* and keep a horse, on £90 a year and -ClO house allowance, the only .satisfaction being occasionally arriving an hour late through tramping a 10-acre paddock up to the neck in parts with fern hnnting for your horse in a dense fog. At present I am about IS miles from the railway, and the roads connecting are 50 per cent, worse—average riding pace three miles in 1* hour —mud often up to the girth, and the road in parts urrwalkabJe on foot. A mail reaches us three times a week, circumstances permitting, and I have to ride four miles for it, or "to a store of any kind. This necessitates keeping and feeding a horse with chaff at £8 per ton and upwards. When I first came I would have had to walk 3* miles to school, but for the kindness of some people who offered mc what they could —a bed on the floor. Even then, I had two miles to walk, but I was very glad to accept that, for the people were kindness itself. It is true, I have only eleven children to teach, hut they comprise Sfcandarde V., TV., HI., H., and L, and Primers L, ll_ and HI., with about one child in each. clam. For this we are -paid £90 salary, and any day I might get children from another school in the VL and v.ll. Standards, and get no increase in salary. It is far easier to teach two passes -with 30 in each, than eight

classes, and having to prepare snch * wide range of work, and yet assistants often get far more, and well they earn every penny of it. We do not wish their salaries reduced, but ours raised. We are far worse off—further from civilisation:—no headmaster to go to for advice —the sole responsibility of the children, and the dealing with irate parents, and lastly, the whole syllabus to cover. The payment solely pn the average seems to mc unfair, as I might have a school of average 15, with all the standards and classes from the Primers up to the VII. Standard, and the salary £90, whereas a school of average 16 may have only up to the IV. Standard, and the salary ie then £120. What use are liberal holidays, when it cost's pounds to get anywhere? Is it any wonder there is a scarcity of male teachers for this grade of school, and it would be fiendish to send a girl to some of them? I have omitted numbers of hardships some have to suffer, as they are too sensational, yet nevertheless, true. Will any members of the Teachers' Institute who read this and sympathise, kindly take the matter up, as we, most of us, are too far away to do anything?-—I am, etc., IN THE BACKBLOCKB.