The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1946. Park and Gardens

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24960, 22 August 1946, Page 4

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1946. Park and Gardens

The Christchurch City Council should at the earliest possible moment make known its intentions with regard to the control of the Christchurch Botanic Garden, for which it is now made responsible by the Christchurch Domains Act. The act requires the council to administer, maintain, and keep the gardens “as a botanic garden and “ for that purpose only In commenting on this provision, an amendment written in by the Local Bills Committee, we welcomed it as one which was intended to prevent the administration of the gardens from being merged in that of the city parks and reserves generally, and which should have that effect. On second thoughts we are less confident of the effect of the statutory formula, whatever it was intended to be. If the council were to set the gardens under general supervision of the reserves committee

and the superintendent of parks and reserves, to whom (and not directly to the council) the curator would then be responsible, it seems at least possible that the council could claim to be complying with the statute. Continuing the separate curatorship (though in a responsibility one move further from the council than from the Domains Board), and maintaining the present boundaries and character of "the gardens, the council might well uphold this claim unless and until the policy pursued in the gardens could be shown to have turned widely away from the purpose of “ a botanic garden ” ordered to be kept “ for that purpose only ”. Since it is commonly understood that the council did, when the bill was drafted, think of administering the gardens through the reserves committee and its superintendent, the question of its intentions, now

that the amended bill has been enacted, becomes an anxious one. It is to be hoped that the council will read the act liberally and farseeingly. The curator of the gardens should be the executive officer of the counoil, as previously of the board, directly responsible to it for their administration, and to no intermediary and superior officer. His should be the full and sole responsibility for advice on policy and for the carrying out of accepted policy. Otherwise, the prospect is disturbing. First-class men will not accept a position of subordinate status; and under a second-class man a second-rate policy will be pursued and second-rate results will be.obtained. In city parks and reserves one view of policy is appropriate; in a botanic garden, another. There are great and obvious similarities, even identities, in ends, means, and appearances; but the differences, less obvious, are fundamental. Sooner or later, if the curator is the superintendent’s subordinate, the view and aims of an able superintendent will prevail over those of a weak curator; and

the gardens will be managed as an annex of the reserves department. This must be avoided. But one thing should be made plain. These references are to dangers in prospect, not to present dangers. It can hardly be doubted that co-operation between the present curator and the present superintendent would remain, in a new relationship, exactly what it has been, close, friendly, and constructive. But the council should take long views and begin by laying down a policy which safeguards the future and the development of the gardens in it.