A QUESTION OF GOOD TASTE.

Progress, Volume XVIII, Issue 1, 1 September 1922, Page 15

A QUESTION OF GOOD TASTE.

FOREIGN MATERIAL FOR NEW ZEALAND MEMORIALS.

CRITICISMS IN CHRISTCHURCH.

In view of the editorial references in last issue of Progress, to the unsatisfactory policy adopted by some war memorial committees in material from outside New Zealand, it is interesting to notice that the matter has been actively taken up in Christchurch.

“Why is the Bridge of Remembrance to be built of Tasmanian stone? This is the question that is being asked by scores of citizens in Chiistchurch. Surely it is a mistake to use Tasmanian stone when this country has bounteous supplies of suitable stone,” remarked a correspondent in the Lyttelton Times. The correspondent added:—“Within a stone’s throw of the proposed bridge a New Zealand Industries Exhibition is shortly to be opened with the express object of fostering New Zealand industries, yet when a splendid opportunity like the Bridge of Remembrance presents itself for the utilization of a natural product of New Zealand it is turned down in favour of the Tasmanian product. What is good enough for at least one architectural gem in our city should be good enough for the above bridge, and certainly it would be more satisafctory to know that a New Zealand stone was used in the erection of a bridge in remembrance of New Zealanders. Perhaps those responsible can give a satisfactory answer to the question and can prove conclusively that the New Zealand stone is neither inferior nor unsuitable; nor is the cost prohibitive. Many will be pleased to have the question answered satisfactorily.”

We are glad that the Lyttelton Times editorially supported this view. It remarked;—“A correspondent asks why the “Bridge of Remembrance,” which is being erected over the Avon at Cashel Street is to be built of Tasmanian stone. vVe entirely agree with our correspondent that it is much to be regretted. As he points out, a memorial to New Zealanders should be erected, if possible, in materials indigenous to the country and the stone which was considered good enough by the builders of Christchurch Cathedral and the Provincial Council Chambers ought to be suitable enough for a bridge. We understand that most of the stone which was used in the construction of the two edifices mentioned—by general acclaim the finest architectural achievements in the province—pame from quarries within a few miles of this city. With such resources at our command it is inexplicable that a New Zealand, and particularly a Christ-

church war memorial, should be built of imported stone." - ~ INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION'S PROTEST. ; WHY NOT NEW ZEALAND MARBLE? "The architect who' has drawn the plans for the Bridge of Remembrance has specified Tasmanian marble for the arch," said Mr. W. J. Jenkin, president of the Canterbury Industrial Association en September 13th. Mr. Jenkin proceeded to criticise this decision on the score that nothing but New Zealand material should have been used in a memorial of this kind. The speaker's remarks were based on an invitation from the Bridge of Remembrance Committee to the executive to send a delegate to a meeting to decide on steps to collect a sum of £2,000 to complete the sum required for the cost of the structure. "That would mean," said Mr. Jenkin, "that we would practically pledge ourselves to give support from our funds; but that, I am afraid, we could not do at present." Turning to the decision to use Tasmanian stone for the arch, he said that they, as industrialists, did all they possibly could to keep money in their own colony. They had some of the finest marble granite that the world could produce—of that he had been assured by numbers of men capable of judging the position. Mr. Jenkin referred to the fine quality of the marble in the Parliamentary Buildings. That marble which could not be excelled, was New Zealand marble. "I deplore the fact that this bridge, which is going to comemorate the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for us, is not going to be composed wholly of material got from our own country, he said. Had he known at an earlier stage of the intention to use Tasmanian stone, he would certainly have entered a protest on behalf of the Industrial Association. It was only right that they should voice their sentiments in matters of that kind.

Mr. H. J. Marriner thought that it was not right to offer critisicm of the kind just given if the executive were not going to send a delegate to the conference to be held to consider raising the £2,000.

Mr. Jenkin: We have subscribed privately.

Mr. Marriner: But you are criticising as the Industrial Association. If you were sending a delegate and supporting the Bridge of Remembrance, it would be different.

Mr. P. R. Climie considered that there was no objection to the executive sending a representative to the conference. The commitee were about £2,000 short of the amount required, and so an appeal was to be made to the public. If a contribution was offered, he did not suppose that it would be refused, but the Bridge Committee wanted the moral support of the Industrial Association.

Mr. W. H. Winsor said that probably some of them had not taken enough interest in the matter from the start. Now, when everything had been decided, they were offering criticism. In the first place, he said, the memorial was a Canterbury memorial, and should have been a Canterbury effort, but as such it was not supported.

Mr. Ciimie: That is where the mistake was made.

Mr. Winsor: No stone was specified at the start. It was then found that New Zealand stone was going to cost considerably more than funds would allow. Therefore they decided to get the marble at a price they could afford. At the present time there was a good deal of unemployment. The stone will come from Tasmania in a rough state, and all the preparation necessary will be done in Canterbury.

It was agreed that the chairman should attend the meeting being convened by the Bridge of Remembrance Committee.