SCENERY PRESERVATION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 5 February 1926, Page 8

SCENERY PRESERVATION.

THE SOUNDS NITRATE SCHEME. SOME CAUSTIC COMMENT. A paragraph in the report of the standing committee of the- Board of Governors of the New Zealand Institute, dealing with the Scenery Preservation Board, drew some pointed comment front the members of the institute on the subject of scenery preservation and the Government attitude thereto (reports the Otago Daily Times). The clause in question read as follows: “It was resolved on May 2-9 that in the opinion of the institute it is desirable to widen the 'membership of the Scenery Preservation Board to include representatives ol' societies dealing with scientific and historical matters. The resolution was forwarded to the Hon. Minister in charge of ». . scenery preservation, who replied that he had carefully noted the resolution ' r passed by the standing committee and he would be plased to give the matter careful consideration should the Government decide to modify the provision of the Scenery Preservation Act, 1906, under which the Scenery Preservation Board is constituted.” The Hon. G. M. Thomson said it was interesting to note as showing the Government’s attitude that it had granted permission to a commission to examine Smith Sound and the region of Lake Manapouri with the object of setting up a nitrates plant in the country. The proposal would, he thought, defeat itself. It was a proposal to raise £'5,000,000 and to burrow through to one of these beautiful arms ol the sound. He merely mentioned the fact. He did not think the scheme would go far. because he did not think it was a commercial proposition that would commend itself in London, but the Government was granting the permission. There were sounds with no great scenic attractions, but this particular sound was almost as beautiful as Milford.

Mr. A. M. Wright (representing the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury) said that the nitrate proposition was about the most ridiculous thing he had heard of for some time. From the agricultural point of view at the present time we were exporting considerable quantities of nitrates in the form of animal carcases, and the proposal was ceitainly ridiculous from that point of view. Vby did the promoters not come out frankly and say exactly what they wanted to do ? Why did they not state definitely ’ that til© nitrate was for the purpose of explosives? “If there is to be an export,” he concluded, “it must be for that purpose. Otherwise it is no , earthly use.” V Professor Easternelcl (representing A" the Nelson Institute) said that that was certainly his point of view. The Government had had a report from Mr. Parry, who said it was quite impossible to make a commercial proposition of it. The speaker had gone into the -report, and he was quite certain Mr Parry,'was justified. However, the syndicate had apparently persuaded tlie Government that it was going to he a splendid thing for New Zealand to try to compete with overseas nitrates in overseas countries. Hecould not see there was a possibility of success, though one had to admit that predictions were not always fulfilled.