IN WHOSE HANDS?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11030, 19 March 1914, Page 3

IN WHOSE HANDS?

ACCLIMATISATION GROUNDS. SOCIETY OR DOMAINS BOARD. DISCUSSED BY THE COUNCIL. At the meeting of the Council of the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society last night the question of tho control of tho Society's gardens was discussed at some length. A letter was received from the Christchurch Domains Board asking why tho araucaria in the Society'. o grounds had been destroyed and requesting that the remains of the tree should be removed. Mr Stead said that sooner or later tho Society would have to find out exactly how it stood regarding the Domains' Board and the control of tbo grounds. The Board had visited the gardens without letting the Society know of tho inspection. The Board Ln'd marked three trees for destruction and he objected. The gardens woro not kept solely for beautifying purposes, and as long as they_ woro presentable nothing could be said. Some cf tho ponds were decidedly picturesque, and the Board had really nothing to complain of in that respect. Some of the trees interfered with the Society's work, but it could not remove thorn. Three trees had been marked for destruction and tho Board would probably do as it did before—remove, any timber of any value and leave the Society to clean'up tho mess. Of the three trees marked, two w.ere certainly not needed, but tho third was needed very badly. It had a hollow in the trunk and it was hoped that next season ■ the wood ducks would nest in it. _ Tho tree was not an eyesore. The Society might just as well "find out now what powers it had. The tree mentioned in the letter was not destroyed. It died naturally, despite the efforts of the curator to save it. The least that the Bonrd could do would' be 'to advise the Society oi its intended visits. Mr J. Sutherland said that the Board's letter was an insult to the Society. Mr Stead added that the curator had been instructed not to cut down any trees except by the instructions of the Gardens Committee.

Mr Sutherland: They want us to kick by the look of it, and then to kick us out. Dr 0. M. Anderson said that, in his opinion, the trouble had arisen through thoughtlessness, and that the Board meant no intentional discourtesy. He knew that the chairman of the Hoard was well disposed to the Society and •would do anything in reason to meet it. Mr Stead: Would he give us sole control?

Dr Anderson replied that the Society went into the matter some time ago' and found that an Act of Parliament would be needed to secure sole control for the Society. The Board had not the power to hand the land over, even if it desired to do so. The same difficulty cropped up with the Hospital Board, which needed land. He would suggest that a deputation should wait on the Board and discuss these matters.

Mr Stead, in moving that a letter embodying the facts.mentioned by him should be sent to the Domains Board, said that it had persistently ignored the Society. He did not object to the Board as a Board, but lie did object to its attitude regarding the Society. Mr H. M. Cottoiucontended that the Board had no jurisdiction over the Society. An amendment moved by Dr Anderson, favouring the appointment of a deputation, lapsed for want of a seconder. Professor Ti G. R. Blunt,said that he had been a member of a former deputation, biit it "did not prove of much use. It was quite time that things were brought to a head. The Society should know where it stood in this matter. Mr O. R. Clark said that if the Society's gardens were under the jurisdiction of the Board it should apply for a share of the garden fetes of .the past two or three years. The chairman, Mr W. H. Tisdall, said that the Domains Board failed to recognise that* the Society was for acclimatisation and not beautifying purposes. Eventually a sub-committee was appointed to: draft a letter in reply to the Board's communication.