AN OBELISK AT ORAKEI

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22202, 31 August 1935, Page 12

AN OBELISK AT ORAKEI

The offer of the Mayor to present the city with a granite obelisk in honour of Captain Hobson, firfct Governor of New Zealand and founder of Auckland, has been appreciatively accepted by the City Council. Such thoughtful generosity merits the thanks of the whole community, all the more because, as yet, this city indeed, the Dominion has been guilty of a strangely prolonged and deeply regrettable neglect to provide adequate memorials of Hobson's epochal work. The fine example set by Mr. Davis should stimulate public endeavour to have a worthy statue of Hobson erected in this city as a feature of the centennial celebrations. To one aspect of the matter, however, attention must be called at once, lest this memorial obelisk should become, after its erection, a subject of undesirable controversy. It is meant, in the words of Mr. Davis' offer, to mark the spot of Hobson's landing at Orakei Bay, and the particular location is chosen as authentically indicated; no date of the landing is supplied in the statement submitted to the City Council, but an impression is conveyed, especially by a reference to the opinion of Mr. Hutchison, the previous Mayor, that "this historic landmark" is particularly entitled to permanent identification by a monument. Such a claim should be thoroughly examined before action is finally taken. Doubt has been publicly expressed whether the slender evidence available for the belief that Hobson made his first or even an official landing at Orakei is sufficient to justify the distinction proposed, and the doubt should be respected. It is supported by a collation of the various records bearing oifc the foundation of Auckland, together with the known movements of Hobson during the period within which fall the different dates named as that on which he paid the visit to the Ngatiwhatua at Orakei. No first-hand testimony has been produced to prove that this was his first landing-, place in the Waitemata, and the indirect evidence offered is confusing, even contradictory. A day in March, varvingly said to be in 1840 or 1841, has been circumstantially mentioned, but throughout that monj;h of 1840 Hobson lay ill at Waimate, and in March, 1841, when it is alleged he received on the visit to Orakei its chief Kawau's permission "to pick the best part of the land" for a capital, the purchase had been completed five months before. And this is only one of the many difficulties with which the subject bristles. Mr. Davis naturally wishes the monument to have "an appropriate commemorative inscription." It will have no historical value without some definite statement of what it commemorates. What is that to be? Thought should be' given to the wording as a pre-requisite. It may be possible to remove the embarrassing doubt. If so, this ought to be done promptly. Even the splendidly penerous spirit in which Mr. Davis has offered his gift should not be allowed to foreclose discussion on the historicity of the occasion of it*