ANSWER TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9704, 17 April 1897, Page 9

ANSWER TO CORRESPONDENTS.

" Culverdk-m "—lt would be hard to determine what is meant by "an uutrained horse," but it is probable that tl:e intention of the rule is that horses that have not been prepared in the recognised manner by being stabled, covered, f.d, exercised, galloped, groomed, and regularly and systematically attended to, alone may be allowed to compete.

DIAMOND JUBILEK COMMEMORATION.

TO THE EDITOR 01* THE -BESS. Sir,—l have just read Dr. Mickle's letter on the above, aud Mr Stephen Powell's reply thereto. On the occasion of the meeting to consider the above, at which the Sub-Commttt-e's report was received, schemes were advocated by the said Committee, and placed before the meeting for final choice. Ist. The Jubilee Home, which was carried almost without a dissentient voice ; 2nd, the tepid bath ; 3rd, the clock tower. The latter two were dismissed with a loud chorus of'•'Noes." The clock tower with a contemptuous chorus of the same monosyllable. And rightly so I think. The tepid bath, in the first place, was a Corporation scheme. What was -wanted was a Canterbury monument not a Corporation advertisement.

The clock tower has been for years a disthe city—at any rate to generations of City Councils. Is "it fitting that, on such an occasion as the present, we should set up a monument of ridicule and disgrace. At the meeting there was strong evidence of a desire that the Jubilee Home should be supplemented by some auxiliary scheme, but neither of the two proposed by the Sub-Committee found much support in that direction. One or two other schemes were freshly brought forward—l may say sprung upon the meeting—but without success. 1 attempted myself to have one or more of the original schemes considered, as an auxiliary. But his Worship ruled the proposal out of order, as said schemes had been dismissed by the Sub-Committee. Perhaps I might have put myself in order had I moved a resolution "that the report be referred back to the Sub-Committee for reconsideration." It would, I am certain, iiave been the wisest course, for a lamer report I can hardly imagine, as was proved by the reception which their Nos. 2 and 3 met with at the hands of the meeting. If an auxiliary scheme is really wanted, then I think the best for the purpose of those schemes first brought forward, and then referred to the Sub-Committee, is the improvement to the River Avon. If that were carried out and properly maintained by the various Corporations on whioh such maintenance would devolve, it would be an amazing addition to the beauty of the city, and would be a monument always in evidence, not only within but without the city boundaries; would add also to the health of the city and to the facilities for recreation to the citizens.

It would require to be carried out in an adequate manner. It would need a certain number of locks or weirs to maintain the level of the river in summer, and to let off the surplus water iv winter, so that there should be no complaints of water-logged ground on the low-lying lauds in the vicinity.

Ab to Dr. Mickle's scheme for improvement to the Park, I must have missed it somehow, for I don't seem to have heard of it. It may be a good scheme, but it has this weak point—you have to go out to the Park to Bee it. The improvement to the river is the reverse—you would have to go out of your way to avoid it.—Yours, &c, Michael S. Campbell. Papanui, 14th April, 1897.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS.

Sir, —There is so much dissatisfaction ' being evinced owing to the tactics pursued to force the motion through for devoting the whole of the money subscribed to the Jubilee Home, leaving the city, from which the bulk of the money will come, quite out in the cold as far as.any thing to show for it is concerned, that I am very glad indeed to have the assurance of the Mayor that the Executive Committee, feeling that there is good ground for solid objections, have determined, seeing they have the power (in spite of the motion carried at the meeting of the General Committee), to sink no more than £500 on the Jubilee Home, leaving the subscribers to afterwards determine what shape a memorial for the City proper shall take if funds permit. Now, sir, while I have every confidence in this assurance made to mc personally by the Mayor being carried out, I would like to suggest that while subscriptions should not be positively earmarked, that in asking for subscriptions the Committee should place their schemes, viz., the tepid baths, the clock tower aud improving of Hagiey Park, before the public, keeping a record of which scheme each particular subscriber favours most, and whichever has the largest monetary support should be adopted for the city memorial. Such an arrangement ought o be satisfactory to all, and there could be io hanging back on account of not getting vhat they wanted. If this is adopted I hall be very glad to give my mite, and lump for the clock tower, but if not, and here is no more tangible guarantee that.the rhole money will not be buried in Woolton, then I am afraid I must confine my xpression, of loyalty to her Majesty by simply drinking her health on the auspicious day within the precincts of my own' domicile.

In conclusion, I can't help thinking that in allowing this subject to be ventilated so freely in your correspondence columns, involving the setting up of so much type for which you do not get a red cent, as a quid pro quo, your proprietors are giving a pretty tail subscription. At the same time many of your readers I know are anxiously waiting for your own sentiments on the subject in a leading article, and when yon do I hope you will in all your strength go for the clock tower.—Yours, &0.,* Sam Suck.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS.

Sir, —As at the present moment the inhabitants of Christchurch and its neighbourhood are much divided as to what to do by way of placing on record thflir feeling of loyalty in connection with the Queen's year, 1 beg to submit the following suggestion, emanating from tho Prince of Wales wheu approached on the subject. His words are, " Works of mercy among the sick and suffering," and "anything which hiay tend to brighten the lives and ameliorate the condition of her Majesty's poorer subjects." The Committee appointed to consider this question have published their recommendation that the accommodation at the present Queen's Jubilee Home, erected in 1887, should be added to. That clearly is a work of mercy in relation to those who in their old age have become friendless and destitute.. And at the present time the position and prospects of Herrick's City Mission Home are second to none in importance. All who have had experience of the working of that institution during the past few years know well that in the work done by its late manager and founder, the lives of a great number of her Majesty's subjects havo been " brightened " and their condition ameliorated.

These "gr-C-ous and generous words, emanating from the son of a Sovereign, who, throughout the whole course of her reign, has never failed to exhibit her deep and tender sympathy with suffering and affliction, are worthy of being remembered and given expression to.—Yours, &c, Alfred Cox. Christchur-h, April 14th, 1897.

ART EXHIBITION.

TO ___t KDITOR OF THK PKKSS. Slß,—Evidently " A Prominent Member of the Art Society's Hanging Committee" has good reason to pray to be saved from his friends, as "Artist" in his reply entirely substantiates what I stated in my letter of April 12th. He poses his friend as Bunthorne, and draws a touching picture of the artist surrounded by three admiring friends imploring him not to be too modest, and praying him to remove pictures "on the line " and replace them with his own work. Just so !—hernia the cause fully explained which led to the result we find in tlie gallery. In other Art Societies not less than three members constitute the Hanging Committee, and admiring friends are supposed to be excluded while the work is being hung. Following the usual custom, the rules of the Society were sent to every working member in the colony before this exhibition. . These

rules included the one quoted by me—" Not move than eight different works will be received from any one artist." If thin rule, as asserted by "Artist," is practically dead, surely it is time the Council struck it outThere is another side of this question to consider. If one artist is allowed to hang ten pictures, and nine of the ten range in price from two to four guineas—which is the value of most of the prizes in the Art Union—this member certaiuly has an advantage over other members who are represented by from two to eight works. If there is no rule in connection with this there is nothing to prevent a member crowding the gallery with low priced work for this purpose. "Artist" says lam "only one " expressing this dissatisfaction. Then what about the report on this Exhibition by the 'IHtnes of March 27th, which comments as follows :—" Even the most cursory glance along the walls suffice- to show that the work of the Hanging Committee—shall we call it a supposititious Committee—leads to the conjecture that alleged pictures were hung just as they came in, regardless of anything save frame dimensions; that they were put just where they happened to fit. The result is peculiarly unhappy, and the ' causations' leading to such a result require to be amended."—Youra, &c., One of the Pjjblic.