DATE SCHEDULE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 65, 18 March 1938, Page 14

DATE SCHEDULE.

FOR CENTENNIAL. FOUNDING OF AUCKLAND. CHAIRMAN'S SUGGESTIONS. Tentative proposals for the celebration of important events in the history of Auckland were submitted to the metropolitan executive of the Auckland Provincial Centennial Council last night by tlie chairman of the council. Sir Krnest Davis, who put forward a plan covering the events of particular interest to Auckland. Sir Krnest's proposals were for practically continuous celebrations in ]',I4U from January 27 to l-'ebruary 24. with special attention to January '2!). the onehundredth anniversary of the founding "f the province and the Dominion; January JO. Captain Hobson's landing at Kororareka; and I'ebruarv 2.'i. tin. arrival of 11.M.5. Herald in the Waitemata River. It was obvious, said Sir Krnest, that February fi. when first signatures were allixed to the Treaty of Waitangi, would be observed as a national celebrat ion. Large Maori Gathering. In celebration of the Agreement of Cession of Waitemata. obtained by Captain SymoiKls from chiefs of the Nuatiwhatua tribe. Sir Krnest proposed an organised Maori gather,ng on September K. He also suggested that celebrations to commemorate the oiie-hund red th anniversary of the founding of the citv of Auckland should be conducted from October 17 to October 20. "It is not -without interest to recall that January 2!». as the date of the founding of New Zealand, is acknowledged only in the North, where it also, of course, is recognised as flic date of the Sounding of the Auckland Province." said Sir Krnest. " I here is also the point that. Strictly speaking. January :i() and not January 29. should be observed as the foundation date, because although H.M.S. Herald dropped anchor off Kororareka on .January 2U Hohson did not land until the •'i'i l11 when he was able to go ashore in form.

1" or the purposes of the centennial, however. T think w ( - will be well advised to give this controversy a wide berth. 1.a.~t year T took up the question with the Internal Affairs Department, im the ho|*> of having the issue clarified. The Department intimated that the question would Ih> brought before the National Historical Committee, although it indicated Mitt the changing of the date from t 2!!t !i to the .'j.ith would involve a pr"<v;s bristling with ii ifiienlt ies. J„ ti»e*c cir- < u.'in tarices I feel that the i->i:r can with ,-afety be left where it non stands and "ot pressed further.''