CANTERBURY COLLEGE.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 334, 8 July 1875, Page 4

CANTERBURY COLLEGE.

A meeting of the Board of Governors of the Canterbury College was held yesterday morning, at the Public Library. Present— Mr H. B. Gresson (chairman), the Revs W. J. Habens and C. Fraser, Dr Turnbull, and Messrs Montgomery, Tancrcd, luglis, Webb, and Hamilton. The minutes of the previous meetirg were read and confirmed. The chairman said that the vote of £6O for a safe had been found insufficient to purchase one of the size required, but the committee had one in view which would answer the requirements and would cost £4O. On the motion of the Rev Mr Fraser, seconded by Mr Tancred, it was resolved, “ That the College committee be authorised to purchase a safe at a cost not exceeding £40.” The chairman stated that the deputation appointed at the last meeting had waited on the Government to ask whether the works at the Museum which had been suspended might be resumed. The Government had replied, that while litigation was threatening they were unwilling to prejudice their position by committing themselves to any statement on the subject, but that the Board should have a full reply at an early date. Such reply had not yet been received. The deputation had seized the opportunity to ask whether the laboratory building would be proceeded with. To this the Government had replied that this matter was so complicated with other matters that they would require time to consider it, but that the money for the work was available._ The Government had asked the deputation to submit to the Board of Governors the desirability of affording every facility to the public for having analyses performed by the Professor of Chemistry. Referring to the last portion of the chairman’s report, the Rev Mr Habens said he thought the Board should know the views that had been expressed by the Government iu regard to the appointment of an analyst. The Government maintained that iu the view of their predecessors—and as they believed of the Board also—the appointment of a Professor of Chemistry was intended to secure the services of a competent analyst, and they appeared to think that the Board had been remiss in not making this sufficiently plain in Li.c lining of the appointment. They complained of the fee of half a guinea for analyses under the Adulteration of Food Act as being prohibitory of action on the part of the police, and as affording encouragement, or at least impunity, to adulterators.

Dr Turnbull said there could be no two opinions as to the necessity of a public analyst. The Board, however, should be careful not to waste the time of the teacher of chemistry in the matter of tuition upon a load of useless analyses. If analyses were made free, the whole time of the professor would be absorbed, to the injury of his teaching powers. The Board had to consider both, and he thought that the small fees proposed would in no way check the usefulness of the analyst to the public, while they would act as a wholesome check upon articles of no value or public inteiest being forwarded. bo far as his experience went, the thing could not be carried out, and if it were attempted, there would be a fargreater outcry consequent upon the delay in the work, than there would be at the small fee proposed.

The Kev Charles Fraser said that this question of the analyst’s salary and fees had been very carefully considered by the Board, and that the scale of charges had been modified by what could be learned about the charges in Dunedin and Wellington, It was lower than in either of these places. He wished most distinclly to assert that the Board never intended that the Professor of Chemistry should do the work of analyst for nothing. He had laborious duties as a teacher for six months in the year, and he could not be expected to give up the other six months for nothing. A charge ranging from 10s 6d down to ss, and even lower, could not be complained of under the Adulteration of Food Act. He understood that the scale of charges for analyses done for private persons was not objected to. Very often the result of one of these analyses would bring thousands of pounds to the proprietors, and it was not reasonable to ask that a man of science should give his knowledge and skill lor nothing. It was said that the analyst in Wellington got £4OO a year for his work. Surely, then, their Professor would be entitled to at least £2OO for his labors during the six_ months when his classes were not in session. He (Mr Fraser) believed there was scarcely a Professor of Chemistry in the world but received large additions to his income through appointments as local analysts, or performing work for the general public. He begged to move—*' That the Board of Governors respectfully submit to the Government the very moderate terms of the Analyst’s scale of analyses as fixed by the Board, and conveyed in a letter of the 13th April last, in reference to the adulteration of food, and urge an immediate appointment in accordance therewith.” The Rev Mr Habens seconded the motion

Mr Montgomery said that he wished to call attention to the resolutions of the Board, of date August 18lh, 1873. It would be seen by those resolutions that it was decided to engage a Professor of Chemistry on the following conditions: —That he was to have £6OO a year as Professor of Chemistry ; that he was to undertake chemical analyses for such fees as the Board of Governors might determine, and that he was not to undertake any private practice. The question therefore stood thus—That the Board of Governors, having gone carefully into this matter, had adopted the scale of fees which had been communicated to the Government. The Board had been very careful to place the fees for analyses of articles of food at a very reasonable rate. With regard to fees to be charged to private individuals, it was evident that there must be a charge made, not only to cover cost of analyses, but also to remunerate the professor for the time for which he would be engaged in making them. He thought when the matter was placed before the Government they would consider that the scale of fat s adopted by the Board was moderate, and in accordance with the agreement made with the professor when he was being engaged in England. Mr Himilton asked whether the scale of charges bad not been partly based on the cost of materials, utensils, &c, necessary for making an Uyses. The chairman replied that this cost had been considered, and that 10 per cent of the fees received would go to the governor S in Consideration of such costs. The motion was put and carried.

The Rev Mr Habeas moved—-“ That in forwarding the foregoing resolution to the Government, the chairman accompany it with a letter setting forth the considerations by which the Board of Governors is influenced in the matter.” In moving this resolution he (Mr Habens) thought it important that the Government should not have reason to think the Board was obstinately maintaining a position it had taken up, but they should have their attention directed to 'die very important considerations which had weighed with the Board before, and which had been recalled during the present discussion. The Rev Mr Fraser seconded the resolution, which was carried. The secretary read the following report from the library committee: — “ It having been reported to the committee that the January number of the Westminster Review, 1875, had been abstracted from the reading room without authority by Richard Kingston, resolved, that the matter be reported to the Board of Governors, with a recommendation that an apology be demanded from Mr Kingston. That the chairman be requested to issue a caution by way of advertisement in the newspapers, and also by a notice to be posted in the reading room. “ Resolved, 1. That the committee, having before it Mr Armson’s account of charges, amounting to £278, for preparing plans and specifications for the Public Library building and calling for tenders, and having conferred with Mr Armson on his reasons for making the charges, and having ascertained that he declines reducing the same on the ground that it is according to the scale of charges agreed to by the Canterbury Association of Architects, is of opinion that the claim is unreasonable; but that the committee, having regard to the expense and uncertainty of litigation, is not prepared to recommend that the claim be resisted. “ 2, That the committee seeks instruction from the Board as to the selection of an architect for the work now proposed to be carried out, and recommends that it be left to the committee to employ such architect as it may prefer.” The Rev Mr Habens said that as a member of the Library Committee he was willing to acknowledge that the committee had been to blame in two particulars. First, instead of confining themselves to superintending the expenditure of the vote of £4OOO, they had entertained the idea that this sum might be supplemented by future votes, and in this way had been led to agree to the calling for alternative tenders for work estimated in the one case at £4OOO, and in the other at £6OOO ; the work in either case to form part of a larger plan. Secondly, they had allowed the architect to put them off month after month when they ought perhaps to have insisted upon his completing the plans, or withdrawing from the field. But he (Mr Habens) did not think the committee had been to blame in failing to guard against such an unreasonable claim as that now under consideration. If Mr Armson had superintended the erection of a building for £IOOO, he would have been entitled to £2OO as his commission. No one who had not had such special experience as the committee had now gained in this case, could have supposed that the claim merely for plans (no building being erected) would amount to £275. It might be reasonable to claim 2\ per cent upon £6OOO, as the committee had agreed to the preparation of plans for that amount. It must also be acknowledged that Mr Armson had expressed a fear that the plans could not be carried out for £6OOO, but certainly as he prepared the plans with a view to the expenditure of £6OOO, he ought not to be entitled to the benefit of bis miscalculation to the extent of being paid a commission upon a tender for nearly £II,OOO. The thing was so unreasonable that if the Association of Architects compels its members to make charges of this kind, the Board of Governors would probably feel itself bound to avoid dealings with members of that association. He did not think, however, that the Board should hastilyconclude that this case represented the practice of members of that association, and it would be only fair that they should have an opportunity of informing the Board—and in effect the public —whether such a charge as this was in accordance with their rules and practice. He would therefore move—- “ That the report of the library committee in the matter of Mr Armson’s claim be adopted, in the sense of a recommendation to avoid litigation, and that as Mr Armson sustains his claim by citing the regulations adopted by the Canteibury Association of Architects, he be requested to join with the Board in referring the bill to the association.” Mr Tancred seconded the resolution.

Mr Inglis objected strongly to the reference of Mr Armson’s account to the Association of Architects, or being bound by any rules they (the association) might choose to pass. The claim made by Mr Armson was so monstrous in principle that he could not consent to accept the account on any terms. The principle he (Mi Armson) contended for would never be supported by either judge or jury, as it was so utterly unconscionable that an architect should be paid a commission on the lowest tender, for plans which never could have been executed for the sum authorised, as was proved in the present case by the lowest tender being nearly double the amount for which plans were invited.

Mr Montgomery said he thought people in their private capacity obtained from the architect employed modifications of the original plan, if the tenders exceeded the estimate, and were in excess of the amount that a private individual desired to expend. He believed that in all cases the architects modified the plan to bring it within the amount proposed to be expended, and that the commission was charged only upon the amount of the accepted tender. In his opinion the charge made was excessive, though it might be considered by the Architects’ Association as in accordance with their printed rules. Mr Webb asked whether, if Mr Armson were employed to go on with new plans, that would make any difference to the claim? The chairman replied that that question had been put to Mr Armson, and answered by him in the negative. Mr Hamilton asked whether the committee bad inquired of Mr Armson whether, in case a tender for the library, which was o have been erected at a cost of £6OOO, had been received amounting to £20,000, he would have charged commission on that amount? The chairman said that it had been submitted to Mr Armson whether, if a tender had been sent in as high as £50,000 his commission would have been charged on that sum, and he had replied in the affirmative. It had been pointed out to Mr Armeon that

sucli an :i1 mission reduced the principle under winch commission might be charged, to an absurdity.

Mr Hamilton remarked that the admission of such a principle would allow of an unscrupulous architect getting “ bogie” tenders sent in for enormous sums, and so raising the amount of his commission accordingly.

The Rev Mr Fraser would desire the omission of one part of the motion, as it seemed best that both Mr Armson and the library committee should state their views to the committee of the Architects’ Association.

The Rev Mr Habens said that in order to meet the objection expressed to the resolution on the ground that the passing of it might seem to bind the Board, to avoid litigation he would, with permission of the seconder and of the Board, modify it so as to read as follows—“ That the Board is desirous of avoiding litigation in regard to Mr Armson’s charges, and that as he sustains his claim by citing the regulations adopted by the Canterbury Association of Architects, he be requested to join with the Board in seeking an opinion from that association with regard to his bill, it being understood that the Board is not to be held bound by such opinion.” The Board and Mr Tancred accepted the modification.

On the motion being put, it was unanimously carried. Mr Inglis moved—“ That the library committee be authorised to employ an architect at its own discretion, subject however to the restriction that the committee must avoid the possibility of incurring indefinite liabilities on account of professional services.”

The Rev Mr Habens seconded the motion. The Rev Mr Fraser moved as an amendment—“ That the library committee be requested to report on Mr Armson’s claim at next quarterly meeting, and that further steps be delayed till then.” In the appointment of an architect a great deal would depend upon the manner in which this previous question was settled, and the opinion of the entire Board should be given upon it. A meeting would take place in a fortnight. Mr Webb seconded the amendment, and said one great object they had to consider was whether the building should be composed of perishable materials or not. It would be the Public Library of the province, and he believed that a substantial building could be erected at a little more expense, and really neither the Board nor committee would know how much they had to spend upon the building till after Mr Armson’s charges had been paid. On being put the amendment was declared to be lost, and Mr Inglis’s motion carried.

The chairman said the remaining portion of the committee’s report to consider was the review which had been taken out by Mr R. Hingston, and lent to some one else. He had learnt that the practice of taking out reviews from the readingroom was becoming common, and also that a number of newspapers had been mutilated, more especially Punch. Ho person had a right to be guilty of such conduct or remove any of the periodicals. The abstraction of the review he had referred to had become known through the following letter having been found in its pages on its being returned: —“25th May, 1875. Dear sir, — Will you read the article ‘ Bible v Strong Drink;’ not so bad for a non-abstainer, eh? I shall call for the book in the morning. In haste. Yours very truly, Richard Hingston. The Rev J. S. Macfarlane.” On the recommendation of the committee on this matter being again read, Mr Hamilton said he did not think an apology sufficient. To abstract the periodical was a flagrant breach of faith, and he considered some severe example should be made.

The Rev Mr Fraser felt that, as no notices had been posted on the walls, the recommendation of the committee would on this occasion be sufficient. The publicity that would be given to the man’s name would be full punishment in itself. He trusted the Board would be satisfied with an apology. Mr Montgomery would point out that there might be a number of Hingstons among the readers, and the majority of the public would thus be the sufferers. The chairman said he had been informed by the secretary that six periodicals had been abstracted within a short time. The Rev Mr Fraser moved—“ That the recommendation of the library committee, as to Mr R. Hingston, be adopted.” The resolution was put and agreed to. The Board then adjourned.

Professor Monier Williams has been engaged for some time on a new work called “Indian Wisdom; or, Examples of the Religious, Philosophical, and Ethical Doctrines of the Hindus.” It will give an historical account of the chief departments of Sanskrit literature, with English translations of select passages. The Indian Governments have ordered several hundred copies of the work, which will be published at the end of next month.