THE PROPOSED PHILOSOPHICAL INSTITUTE.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1923, 5 July 1869, Page 2

THE PROPOSED PHILOSOPHICAL INSTITUTE.

To the Editor of the Evening Star.

Sir—Since the meeting held to-day, I have had an opportunity of going-.carefully over the “ Rules and Statuses of the New Zealand Institute, ” as published in the volume of “Transactions and Proceedings,” and the perusal of them has convinced me that it may be well even yet to to give more consideration to the suggestions th own out by Mr Rathgate, and more weight to the probable objection hinted at by Mr Eccles than was awarded to either of th-m by the meeting. The steps by which I have been led to this conclusion can be manifested only by a somewhat full quotation from the ‘ ‘ Rules and Statutes. ” But as the subject is important yon may probably not be averse to affording space for that purpose. Let it be premised then that whatever rights as to the framing of a Constitution, the making of Bye-laws, &c., for its own governance, may be enjoyed by any “Incorporated Society” or Institute, all such rights must, as a matter of course, be exercised within the limits of the “Rules and Statutes” of the parent Institute. The first of these is as follows :

“ No Society shall be incorporated -with the Institute under the provisions of ‘The New Zealand Institute Act, 1867,’ unless such Society shall consist of not less than twenty-five members, subscribing in the aggregate a sum of not less than fifty pounds sterling annually, for the promotion of art, science, or such other branch of knowledge for which it is associated, to be from time to time certified to the satisfaction of the Board of Governors of the Institute by the Chairman for the time being of the Society.” Now, according to this rule, it is perfectly clear that no society composed of any less number of members than twenty-five, can be incorporated ; nor by (Kule 2), if incorporated, can remain s > for a single day after the total number of members has fallen below twenty-five. Next, supposing that such Society at any time to consist of twenty-five members only, they must not simply pay their subscription of “one guinea,” the amount at present proposed, hut such further sum as shall amount “in the aggregate to a sum of nob less than fifty pounds sterling annua|]y. ” I will not say that there may not be good and valid reasons for these provisions, but having known m ny societies that have done good service both to their own members and the public at large, wituout its being essential to their existence to have under every conceivable circumstance a roll of even twenty-five m-.mbors and an annual revenue of not less than fifty pounds, I am disposed to think it may be prudeut to look into the nature and value of the quid fro quo. I need not further quote from Rule 2, but Rule 3 reads as follows :

‘ ‘ The bye-laws of every Society to be incorporated as aforesaid shall provide for the expenditure of not less than one third of its annual revenue in or towards the formation or support of some local public Museum or Library ; or otherwise shall provide for the contribution of not less than one sixth of its said revenue towards the extension and maintenance of the Museum and Library of the New Zealand Institute.”

According to this rule, it is clear that no “ incorporated society” is to be allowed the entire control of its funds, except upon the condition of a “contribution” of one-sixth to the New Zealand Institute that is to say, supposing the Society’s revenue for any one year to amount to L3OO, and a majority of its members be anxious to save the whole, or at least as much as may be possible, for the purpose of being expended during the subsequent year—say in erecting suitable buildings, the purchase of valuable apparatus, or the like—it can have authority to do so only by a “contribution ” of LSO to the New Zealand Ipstitute, Here again I would admit there may be good and valid reasons urged in favor of complying with the conditions of this rule, but certainly think it may not be amiss to inquire a little furthsr into their value. It is not necessary to quote Rule 4, as it is mercy a complement of the previous rules ; but as it provides that, in case of a single omission to comply with either the one or the other of the conditions as set forth in Rule 3 by any Society, that Society “shall from henceforth cease to be incorporated with the Institute,” it may not he irrelevant to inquire how this ceasing to be incorporated "would affect the dismembered Society’s legal right to hold the property which may have accrued from subscriptions or donations of its own members. This,

however, is a question which must be cided by the provisions of the Act, which, not having at hand, I cannot refer to. The rule of the New Zealand Institute _ referring to the property of local institutions is, (No. 6) as follows : “ All property accumulated by or with funds derived from Incorporated Societies and placed in the charge of tiie Institute shall be vested in the Institute, and be used and applied at the discretion of the Board of Governors for public advantage, in like manner with any other of the property of the Institute.’ It is clear that the whole force of this rule depends upon the interpretation of the words “ placed in charge of the Institute,” which may eituer be read as applicable to any local “Institute,” of which there are already two—Auckland and Canterbury—or to the New Zealand Institute. If to the former, then it would seem that all property accumulated by or placed in charge of an incorporated Institute becomes de facto the property of the parent Institute. If this were not the intention of the rule, it would have been very easy to set its correct interpretation beyond dispute by inserting words to show by whom the “accumulated property” should be “placed iu charge.” For instance, after the word “Societies,” the words “ and by such Societies placed in charge,” &c., but as the rule stands, it certainly does seem to admit of a doubt whether it was not intended to make a distinction between the property 1 ‘ accumulated by or with the funds ” of any society', and such property' as may have been ‘ ‘ placed in the charge ” of it, and so vesting both descriptions of property in the New Zealand Institute. If this be not the true reading it is difficult to say to whom the property not placed in charge of the New Zealand Institute can be “ vested ” at all. Much more might be suggested ; but enough has been advanced to show the necessity of attention being given to the conditions of incorporation. I am, &c., Charles Smith. Dunedin, July 3, 1869.