HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20629, 19 August 1932, Page 7

HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.

GARDEN COMPETITIONS

MEMBER'S CRITICISM. Some criticism of the methods of, judging employed by the Canterbury Horticultural Society, in its annual garden competitions was made at a special meeting of the society heldlast evening. The meeting was presided over by Mr O. W. B. Anderson, who briefly outlined the purpose and progress of the competitions. The criticism was chiefly concerned in the of the champion garden of Christchurclr and alleged general looseness in the. management of the contests. Progress of Competitions. The chairman said that the competitions had been going on for a number of years; but only in the last three years had they aroused wide interest. The committee had many difficulties to contend with. One of the chief ol these was classification. At all tiuies, however, the committee was anxious to receive advice and help from those in terested. He hoped that those present would raise any points that they considered needed discussion.. The chief innovation in the competitions nest year would be a rock-garden section. Several Points Raised. Mr C. E. Otley said he had one or two poiuts lie would like to raise. In the first place, if it were not possible to hold two competitions in the year one in the spring, and one in the late summer—could not the competitions be held in January. Another thing was that the organiser appointed to canvass for competitors should be a man qualified to give" advice to intending competitors and make them fully acquainted with the needs of the competitions. Judges should be professional gardeners who had spent a lifetime on the .job. They should be men fully qualified' to see the possibilities in the individual gardens and realise the full use that could be made of them. Christchurch gardens were reaching » standard now when it was beyond the capacity of amateurs to judge them. The dates of judging should be advertised in the papers; and the Society's office sbouid always he furnished with full particulars. of the competitions, so that they could be obtained when desired.

Mr Otlcy Baid he had made up his mind after last year's competitions that if things were not altered in the future tbe competitions would fall flat, and tho society would suffer. He alleged mismanagement and unbusinesslike procedure on the part of the organisers of the competitions". Chairman's Beply. Replying to Mr Otley, Mr Anderson .said that, it would be difficult to hold tho single competition in January because, for one thing, many people went away at Christmas, and consequently their gardens were liable to suffer about that time from lack of attention; and for another, the society's, big flower show was held in February,'" and it would be almost impossible for the committee to organise a competition in January. About choice of gardens for \the competition —it was the object of the society to refrain from discouraging anybody from entering liis garden; and this was -not only for. the. good of the society, but it was for the good of the City also. Mr Anderson was of the opinion that perhaps it was not a good idea to advertise the dates of judging, because it I encouraged people to prepare their gardens specially for the occasion. Tho society had long contemplated engaging professional gardening experts as judges, but the financial position hardly permitted it at present. ! If there had been a slight amount.of | confusion over the arrangements for I tho last competitions, said Mr Ander- ! son, it- had probably been due to the I work caused by the National Flower j Show. 'Nevertheless, he was prepared | to refute certain specific charges made I by Mr Otley.

l)iscussion followed Mr Anderson's reply. Some suggestions were made by Mr Otlcy, and the committee promised to take these into consideration. It was resolved to consider limiting the Rose Bowl competition for the best garden in Christchurch to the C Class of gardens.