ST. PETER'S MISSION

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 115, 18 May 1927, Page 8

ST. PETER'S MISSION

REALISING ITS IDEALS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—The reply of the Rev. Mr. H. Watson, chairman of St. Peter's Mission Trustees, to my letter in the "Evening Post" of Saturday last, leaves several of my statements still unanswered.

May 1 point out that Mr. Watson states there that it was in 1821 that the Diocesan Synod agreed to St. Peter's Mission - affiliation to the Social Service Board, evidently satisfied that no extra financial burden would be laid on the trustees of St. Peter's Mission, since the affiliation gave him a wider district to which to appeal for funds. Surely the faith of the Synod was justified by the fact that no appeal of Mr. Taylor's so far has been otherwise than generously responded to by his steadily increasing body of sympathisers. The Synod presumably at the same time refused to take over the control and responsibility from the shoulders of St. Peter's Mission Trustees; therefore they, the trustees, must have realised their position and their full .responsibility in 1921. Yet in 1921, and for several years following, they still allowed the energies of the Rev. Mr. Fielden Taylor and his many workers to be directed. to ■ collecting funds for the purchase of further ground sites in order to erect the great building which they did not intend to build—or did they— which? If they did take the full responsibility in allowing the property to be purchased for an alleged definite object, i.e., "the building of 'more suitable premises for the mission work, why the change to the later decision that the whole scheme was a mistake?

The mission report of 1923-24 contains

It lia's taken five years to acquire the necessary land. We are now in sight of building—those who work at the mission realise the total inadequacy of our present buildings; our ability to- progress and extend depends on the extent to which you who read realise our vision. Under the Providence of God we have obtained the land—shall .we go forward and build?

What the diocese would or would not do does not alter the fact that, for several years, the trustees apparently undertook the responsibility of sanctioning the building scheme, and .backed the appeals for funds to the public of the city and diocese of Wellington, knowing that they, and not the.jdiocese, bore the full responsibility. This 1923-24 report before me contains a sketch of the proposed great building, and neither in this report nor in that of .1924-25 can. I find any clue leading a reader to think that the great scheme had been abandoned. Just'when and \vhere_ the change of plan first showed it is impossible for me as an onlooker to decide. But I fail to see that Mr. Watson has attempted to explain how a scheme acclaimed by him as chairman in 1921 as a necessary work, and a noble vision, becomes in six years a thing qiiite unwanted and totally imsuited, geographically and financially, for the district. Mr. Watson's second argument is concerned, with the.alleged unsuitability of the district for such an institution as a Boys' Hostel. ■..'■■ "Tar'anafci street," he says, "is'jnot a suitable'locality . . it is impossible 'to provide even the smallest grounds for outdoor relaxation. The centre of the city is not the place for such institutions." In the " opinion of "Onlooker,' -Taranaki street,'especially that part of. it now owned by' the mission, ia very suitable for: such- a purpose. Since it is evident that: a building destined to serve the needs of boys employed about the city, must be central. The YM C A is well within the business part of the city, and, indeed, it is most necessary that such a place should be in a "home-to lunch" locality if- it is to serve the needs of working boys. Neither the V.M.C.A. nor the Boya' Institute possesses recreation areas, and yet these institutions cater successfully for youths of various grades and ages, and also have very successful sports teams entering in the various organised games., I think we may find many such examples, both aT homo and abroad, of the necessity of an absolutely central position for such an institution. Moreover, Taranaki street is within easy walking or cycling distance of several of the playing areas of this city. May I be allowed to point out Ilmt two important questions I asked remain still unanswered, viz.:

.. 0) What do the trustees intend to do with the frontage of the section on which the proposed new hall i s to be built? Since, if the hall is ultimately to be out-h-onted and outflanked by many-storied commercial buildings, then a £6000 mission building will truly be a white elephant in such a position, though perhaps a small one. . ■

(2) What is to be done'with the rest of the painlully acquired block'of land? Mr Watson assures, us that it will be used to the best advantage! Mr. Taylor's supporters and subscribers would, I am sure like a definite proposal as to the expenditure ot the funds now invested in the land to help realise his visions—even his alleged curtailed visions of 1927. •\iA Mr"! 01 ,nnd yet '""I'ortant,. point in Mr. Uatsons present building proposal it, contained in the statement that they intend to erect a' two-story hall for the multifanoua activities of the mission, with club rooms for boys and girls upstairs, isow, Sir, anyone who has any knowledge of the i genus "boy" will:realise that the idea ot a social hall with a boys' or girls' club functioning overhead is nn absurdity The movements of a club of healthy boj"-s with an average attendance of 25 or so can be guaranteed to drown even the nasal strains of a "jazz" orchestra at concert

In conclusion, Mr. Editor, I /} lavo to hank you for your courtesy in giving tins matter publicity and I feel sure many of your great body of readers will deplore with mo what seems a failure on the par? of St. Peter's Mission to give any immediate hope o f an effective realisation of Mr Taylor s high ideals of service to the community; though, by his teaching example, and practical work, he has already given much that is imperishable and can- ?°* b= t»ken aw. I have stated the case as I see it from the point of view of an onlooker, and I feel sure that the pub--,wl -T^" f re in*e«ated and have matter put before them. I have endeavoured to present my view of this clearly and dispassionately, and have, I hop? some further interest iv the matter. I herewith conclude my share of the correspondence.—l am, etc*

ONLOOKER.