MOUNTAINEERING IN NEW ZEALAND

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24254, 23 March 1940, Page 19

MOUNTAINEERING IN NEW ZEALAND

TO THE EDITOh Sir,— l have just seen the letter written to you last week by two Dunedin officers of the New Zealand Alpine Club. I consider that it was a quite unfair criticism of a well-balanced summary of New Zealand alpine history, and an unwarrantably unjust personal criticism of a public servant who does not, I presume, have the right of reply. Messrs Gilkison and Sim have demeaned themselves and their organisation.

It can be admitted that the account of the Rev. Mr Green's activities was not complete. Mr Pascoe did not describe the work around Wakatipu; neither did he tell us whether' Mr Green preferred tea or coffee A most lamentable omission, to be sure: but possibly there was no space.

It can be admitted that the account of work around Tutoko is incomplete. Mr Pascoe did not tell us much about the work of Malcolm Ross in that area; neither did he tell us about many equally interesting and often much more technically difficult climbing in the regions north of Mount Cook.

It can be admitted that less space is given to the Rev. H. E. Newton than to Dr Teichelmann; but if members of "the Alpine Club wanted the Department of Internal Affairs to publish a list of names of their fellow members they should have offered to subsidise the work. Any unlearned hiker could think of 50 other names with some claims to recognition. None could use space and type more economically than Mr Pascoe has used it. When Mr Pascoe talks of the "fading spark of interest" lam sure he is aware of the fine work done by a few notable climbers. Blow as they might, three men could not have blown into being such a fiame of interest as now burns through the work of 300 young men or more, none working with the financial resources or the resources of leisure time enjoyed by an old" " gentleman mountaineer" in the past. It is debatable whether the orrission of the five-page list of trips in 1910-14 was made through lack of historical perspective or because of a proper feeling for historical Derspective. Both of your correspondents have done some fine climbs. I doubt, however, if thev will make the headlines in 50 years. Their note on H. F. Wright was possibly justifiable, but the rest of their letter was a fiddling criticism of petty detail, viewed, it seemed to me, from a dangerously partisan point of view All these points are a matter for debate. In my opinion. Mr Pascoe has been sufficiently bold without abandoning entirely the safe middle course. His work might have been expected to satisfy less jealous guardians of the historical honour and tradition of a club which has usuallv been fortunate in its average rank and file but not always as lucky in its choice of officers with tact and some capacity for humanitv and toleration. But quite apart from technical points of historical detail the letter you printed last week will. I firmly believe leave a nasty taste in the mouth of anyone who believes that personal acrimony should be kept out of a fairly clean sport. Mr Pascoe's credentials are questioned, and in support of an argument that a better choice should have been made your correspondents stoop to try and reduce Mr Pascoe's status as a climber and explorer. A quotation is taken out of the context of an Alpine Journal review to show that Mr Pascoe should " gain more experience." This was the one unfavourable passage in the review. I consider it has been misused dishonourably., The only expert of "this great club" who has been in a position to know anything of the work of Mr Pascoe and other members of the Canterbury Mountaineering Club (Mr H. E. L. Porter) has spoken nothing but praise for them. But this is beside the point. Praise or dispraise of one man or one organisation should have been omitted from any honest attempt to appraise or criticise the Pictorial Survey. Since it was included I can only assume that your correspondents have been unable to rise above petty personal jealousies. They have placed themselves in a position' from which they can neither withdraw nor advance without dishonour. —I am. etc., S. Brookes. Wellington Branch. Canterbury Mountaineering Club. Wellington. March 18.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—l have to thank you for your prompt publication of my letter of March 14. You are, however, in error In supposing that the author attacked had the ordinary freedom of authors to defend himself. He would have been free if he had written a book in his spare time and published it privately. But the publication that was the subject of the attack was an official production, on which he worked as a public servant, and he could, therefore, not reply without the permission of the Minister, and then only in such terms as the Minister or the head of the department approved Ir. addition, he did not know of the attack in the Daily Times until his attention was drawn to it by a Wellington resident. That is why it astonished me that a paper with such high standards as the Daily Times has always maintained should have published such a letter without either deleting the personal accusations or submitting it to the department for comment. —I am. etc., Oliver Duff. , Wellington, Mar. 21.