THE ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETY AND THE HOSPITAL FENCE.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 700, 16 September 1876, Page 3

THE ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETY AND THE HOSPITAL FENCE.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sir, —Permit me to again address you on the subject of the recently erected fence at the Hospital, which is just now causing so great a commotion in the camp of the Council of the Acclimatisation Society. I had hoped that some members of that body, who are known to possess a weakness for rushing into print at every available opportunity, would have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the Council, in reply to my last, but doubtless the more astute portion conceived the impression that the writer of the letter held his trump cards in reserve; and the more astute portion were right. And now, as to their " perfect right to resist any encroachment," as stated at Monday's meeting by Mr Johnstone. On the 17th March, 1866, there was submitted to the Provincial Executive by the Domain Board an application from the Horticultural Society then in existence, to occupy four acres of the land in Hagley Park adjoining the Hospital, and lying between that institution and the piece of ground which the Acclimatisation Society had already been permitted the use of. (The four acres is the land, a portion of which has been now enclosed as a recreation ground for the Hospital patients). On the I6th August, 1866, the Secretary for Public Works wrote to the Horticultural Society granting their application, subject among others to the following conditions :—" That the possession of it (the land) shall not interfere with the comfort and convenience of the inmates of the Hospital." " That the Society shall hold it as tenants at will." And only on these conditions—which were accepted by the Society —were they allowed to enter jand take possession of the land. The committee of the Horticulturists, though accepting and taking over the ground on the terms named, did not seem to approve of the tenure, and considered it would be inadvisable to expend money in laying' it out or improving it, and after nominally occupying the land for over three years, finally abandoned it; but prior to their doing so, the late curator to the Acclimatisation Society, seeing that no use was being made of this piece, took possession of it without leave or license from the proper authorities, and commenced to dig ponds in it, and this becoming known, he was cautioned to discontinue the work. His representations to the Council resulted in an application to the Board, dated 14th March, 1873, for " the use" of this piece of ground, defining its extent by means of the accompanying plan, which Mr Farr referred to at the last meeting, and asking that they might be granted a legal tenure of it, it being understood that the tenure, if granted, was also to apply to the ground which they, in their own right, for purposes of acclimatisation, were occupying by permission. On June 3rd, 1873, a reply to this application was sent, to the following effect:—"The Board are desirous to meet the society's views in a liberal spirit, but are not able to give to them any legal tenure of the land applied for." Included in this reply was a suggestion that a deputation from the council should meet a deputation from the Board, on the ground, and decide what arrangements could be made. It was shortly after this, if my recollection serves me right, that Mr George Gould and Mr J. R. Hill, representing the Board, met a deputation from the Council, and talked the matter over on the ground. On or about the 7th of November, 1873, the two gentlemen I have named represented to the Board that the society " asked to be allowed to have the use of the rough ground up to the Hospital," and the Board decided to allow them what they asked for, with imperative conditions, however, that no trees were to be cut down, &c.—these conditions of themselves showing, without the semblance of a doubt, how little of a legal ceiiure to the land they were being given. The council then continued their work of digging out the ponds ; and, from that day to this, not only have they not been granted a legal tenure to this land, but they have not even applied for it. So much for the boasted legal tenure of this ground, and Mr Johnstone's opinion that they " had no right whatever to give any of it away," and " had a perfect right to resist any encroachment!" It will now be seen that Dr Campbell was perfectly correct when he " thought they had not a shadow of right, and were there simply on sufferance."

In my last letter I referred to a public avenue fronting the Biccarton road, and which will probably be opened to the public during the coming summer, and to the society having offered in their liberality to give this to the Hospital, provided their trout were not interfered with. I also showed that even had it been theirs to give it would not be suitable for the purposes required. Well, after what I have written as to the position of the society, is it not really touching to read that the secretary said "the society had agreed to allow the fence of the Hospital to come within two chains of the gate on the Riccarton road, provided the Government only occupied the high terrace." Now be it remembered that this high terrace forms the public avenue I have alluded to, and runs across the present entrance path leading to the curator's house, and so little right have the council to give away any portion of it, that on the 21st November, 1871, the Board, in reply to an application, granted the society permission to fence " across the avenue," by the side of the Riccarton road, for the preservation of breeding game, &c, "on the understanding however, that such fence shall be removed at any time when required by the Board." These are the present two lines of fences at the entrance gate. I observe that Mr Johnstone's idea was that the society had been "putin possession for a specific object." Mr Johnstone is quite right, and so they were, but I think I showed in my last communication how well this specific object had been carried out so far as the benefit derived by the public is concerned. I also see that the president has his own opinion of the objects why the society were allowed to occupy such valuable ground, and. spend public money; and one seems to be by inference to collect money from fish and game licenses, and selling trout, not to be spent in thointroduction of valuable birds, animals, &c, but to spend at the bar of a civil tribunal contesting the " right" (mark the word) of the society to a piece of land, which, placed at its best use by them, was only required for a few months during the year as a breeding ground for weeds, and a place where a few trout might disport themselves undisturbed, totheexclu-

sion of a large number of men and womei to whom this long required recreation ground might be the means of restoring to health, and aiding them —even taking a mercenary view—to add by the wealth of their labor, to the prosperity of our province. The motive which has prompted me to write must be my excuse, Sir, for the length of this letter, and, in conclusion, I sincerely hope that every member of the society will make it his duty to be present at the next annual meeting, and by the unanimous vote of all, relegate some of the present members of the Council to their own immediate spheres, where they can exercise their own innate selfishness without injury to others, there, let us hope, in the interests of humanity and of the public, ever to remain in statu quo ante. Yours, &c, ONE OF THE PUBLIC. September 15th, 1876.