ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETIES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14432, 24 July 1907, Page 3

ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETIES.

THE ATTACK ON SOUTH CANTERBURY. A proposal was before the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society at a meeting on Juno 19 to sell some salmo ealar fry to the South Canterbury Society, and m the course of the discussion on the proposal the chairman of the meeting (Mr G. F. Whiteside) challenged tlio right of the South Canterbury Societv to be called an Acclimatisation Society. He asserted that it was doing nothing in the- interests of acclimatisation, and was, in fact, only an anglers' club. In a letter to the president or the Canterbury Society (Dr B. M. Moorhouse), the chairman (Mr J. S. Rutherford) and secretary (Mr W. ,G. Aspmali) of the South Cauterbury Society have given their reply to Mr Whiteside's criticism. Their letter is as.follows: "Some few months ago, the then chairman of our Society, Mr Aspinall, met some of the members" of your Council in Clristchurcl, and, in the course of conversation, it was stated that your Society lad some salmo salar fry whicl they wished to liberate, and it was suggested that the Opihi River would be most suitable. Mr Aspinall said that our Society would be most happy to take charge of the liberation, if your Society would forward the fry, but he was given to understand that your Society wished to sell them, and not to give them to our Society for liberation. He said that in tiat case he would have to place the matter before lis Council, as he could not commit the Society, to expenditure of that nature without instructions, and he promised to bring the subject forward at the annual meeting of our Society. He did so on June 6, and tiemeeting recommended to the incoming Council that tie fish should be obtain-

cd, and the secretary was directed at a sub-sequent meeting of the Council, held immediately after tho annual meeting, to write to your Society for information as to the/ numbers of fry available, their ago and upon what terms you were prepared to let us have them. In accordance with these instructions, our secretary wrote your Society on the following day asking for this information, and his letter was laid before your Council on June 19, and a report appeared in the Press on the following morning giving an account of how our letter was received by your Council, and more particularly by the ohairman of the meeting (Mr G. F. Whiteside). From this account, and from Mr Whiteside's reported remarks, the public were given to understand that our Society were seeking the fry at the expense of your Society, and at no cost to ours. Our secretary's letter can in no way bo interpreted to carry such a construction, and Mr Whiteside had. no right to make such an insinuation. Mr Whiteside then went on to characterise the South Canterbury Society as nothing better than an angler's club which had done nothing for acclimatisation. He said that it had gathered together a credit balance of £6OO through doing nothing, and that our members probably thought that they oould gain something at little cost from the Canterbury Society, but if they wished to stock the Opihi they should pay for the fry at a fair rate. The other members of your Council evidently did not concur in the chairman's remarks nor countenance the hostile attitude showed to our Society, as the report shows that the motion which he proposed was defeated, and our Society entirely exonerate them. Mr Whiteside subsequently returned to the attack and allowed himself to be interviewed by a reporter of the ' Lyttelton Times' and Teiterated his previous statements, and made other erroneous ones which were duly published and which, unless contradicted, would prejudice our rivers in the eye* of tourists and others and materially affect- the interests of our district and of our Society. We have no grievance against your Council nor against your Society, and we have always endeavoured to work in harmony with you and to show your members every oourtesy and we hope to always do so in the future, but we cannot but resent the remarks made by Mr Whiteside in his official capacity and his unprovoked and unwarranted attack. At a meeting of our Council hr>ld on July 11, the matter was discussed, at considerable length, and a resolution was unanimously adopted, all our members with the exception of one beinc present. Dr Hayes moved, and Mr W. H. Brown seconded, that the chairman and secretary draft a letter explaining the position, that the Society deems Mr Whiteside s remarks mest uncalled for and unfair, and sinewing a very bad spirit, and that the letter be sent to the Canterbury Society and to the Christchurch papers, the letter to exonerate other members of the Canterbury Society from Mr "Whiteside's uncaged for attack upon a neighbouring Society."