DR HAAST AND MR MACKAY.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 105, 1 October 1874, Page 4

DR HAAST AND MR MACKAY.

Mr Mackay writes as follows to the New Zealand 'limes : Sirln to-day’s issue of your paper you print, in a prominent position, a postscript to a paper recently read by Dr Haast beiore the Canterbury Philosophical Institute, on Moa Bone Cave at Sumner. This postscript is devoted almost entirely to my vilification on account of my having presumed to write a paper on a subject which Dr Haast seems to consider peculiarly his own. He charges me with dishonest conduct, and includes Dr Hector in the charge as my aider and abettor. I hope that, as this charge appears in your columns, you will give me an opportunity of refuting it—not only as regards myself, but also the director of the Geological Survey, who is at present away from Wellington. Dr Hector’s connection with the affair extends no further than that, as a personal favor he read my paper on the Sumner Cave before the Philosophical Society. A favor which he is in the habit of extending to many more besides myself, as the minutes of the society show. Dr Haast will, therefore, I hope, see fit to withdraw the last paragraph of his remarkable paper, in which he charges Dr Hector with being the wilful abettor of my alleged dishonesty. With respect to Dr Haast’s somewhat ungentlemanly comments on myself, and his assertion that 1 have dishonestly betrayed a trust reposed in me, I fail to see wherein I merit the one, or am guilty of the other. Dr Haast says that the works were entirely conducted under his own superintendence. This is scarcely true; nevertheless, I will, for the sake of argument, accept it as truth, and regard myself in the light of a mere mullockturning machine, examined and cleaned at stated intervals. These, then, being expressly the conditions under which I was employed, I cannot see that Dr Haast has any claim to any facts or theories I might observe or entertain on matters which, by his own showing, were quite outside my special duties, Dr Haast says that he explained to me the nature of every object discovered, and that he found me incompetent to distinguish between the bones of a mammal and a bird. In answer to this, I will only say that some six months previous to the exploration of the Sumner cave, I was employed by Dr Haast in searching for moa bones in Shag Valley, and as bullock bones are plentifully scattered about in that locality, I hope, for Dr Haast’s reputation, that he has not sent to foreign museums, as moa bones, any of the collection which I then made for him. If I was incompetent to distinguish a mammal from a bird bone, why did he employ me on this work ? I leave him to answer. I may say that I have myself known Dr Haast to be in error in judging on points of comparative anatomy ; but any anatomist is liable to error, and I do not wish to bring before the public every triviality which occurs to mv memory regarding him. My original motive in writing my paper on the Sumner cave was to give to the world the theoretical bearings of the facts collected by me on his previously published theories respecting the extinction of the moa by a race which he regarded as distinct from the Maoris. His views on this subject are given in the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, vol. 4, art. 4. If I filched notions from him at all, that published paper—and not, as he says, verbal instructions received from him—was the source of my information. The Sumner Cave explorations were made two years ago, since which Dr Haast has had plenty of time to publish his views, and it is my belief that but for the above paper by me the public would not have had any communication from Dr Haast for a long time to come, as the facts collected conflicted so strongly with his pet theories respecting moas and moahunters. As to Dr Haast’s encouragement of my leaning to science, and the notes consisting of “ three or four pages in quarto,” which, “ after reading, he tore up as of no value to him,” I may say that, fortunately, I only gave to Dr Haast a copy of my original notes, which are contained in a notebook now in my possession. Such treatment of one’s efforts is truly encouraging. Dr Haast labors hard to show what my antecedents were, but has shown nothing relative to me of which I need be ashamed. It is true that, while in Dr Haast’s employment. I was engaged in menial occupations ; but I cannot see why, not having had the superior advantages of education which Dr Haast seems to have enjoyed, I should be subject to his sneers because I try to raise myself to a higher position in the intellectual world. Bogging excuse for trespassing at such length on your valuable space.—l am, 3cc,