CORRESPONDENCE.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 916, 1 June 1877, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETY. To the Editor of the Globe.

Sir, —As my communications in connection with the doings of the Council of the Acclimatisation Society —both the late and present one—have been placed before the public through the medium of your columns, I now ask yon to kindly permit me space to reply to a letter from Dr. Campbell relative to the curator, winch appears in to-day's issue of your morning contemporary. I think that those who have read my previous letters will give mc credit for having made all matters pertaining to this society my study for some little time past, and so much has this been the case that I could not but help experiencing a feeling of chagrin that the late Council should have gone out of office without even according me a simple vote of thanks for all my trouble. And'now for Dr. Campbell. I have read and re-read that gentleman's letter with the hope of following his reasoning, but all my efforts have been of no avail, as his conclusions arrived at by a method no doubt satisfactory to himself, seem to me not only contradictory, but very illogical. We are first told that a majority of one refused to accept the resignation of the curator. This was not the case, as the resignation was accepted by a majority of one, and would have been by a majority of two had the chairman voted. Then it is said that two members were specially appointed to direct and consult with the curator. Now these two members alluded to, as everyone knows, were Dr. Campbell and Mr Wallace, who, by-the-bye, received no special appointment to consult, &c, but were merely to have the looking after of the piscicultural branch of the work. Then "' there arose another Council who knew not Beck' (I think they know Mm pretty well by this time), and that Council neglected to endorse or contradict the same course, and hence the result." Well, it may be my thick-headedness, but that logic is too much for me. I have twisted it in my mind all ways, and can only suppose that as Mr Wallace did not stand for reelection at the last annual meeting, and that as the doctor was ousted from office on that occasion, the new Council by neglecting to appoint him to continue to " consult with the curator " " locked the stable after the horse was stolen." Again, can any one fancy such mi argument as that the first business of the new Council on taking office should have been to lay down a principle that before the curator (their servant) coursed hares for sale, or disposed of the property of tho society, tlicy should first have a .voice in the mattor, nnd then the curator would have condescended io obey—as the doctor puts it —their principle " to the letter."

Repeated references are made to the bullying received by the curator from the Council; to his having been twitted at the meetings about the hare hunting business; and that before the latter took place " there was an underground current of restlessness for fault finding making its appearance in the Council." In the course of his letter Dr. Campbell supports the correctness of his first statement by the following words —" that no one came near lpm (the curator) to advise, except at their monthly meeting," and "the curator had to use his own discretion and was virtually left to do as lie liked." There's bullying for you With a vengeance ! About the twitting business, Dr. Campbell cannot name a single member who used one solitary expression of the kind to Beck at any of the meetings, and the action of the whole Council in desiring that Beck should withdraw his resignation is splendid argument in. favor of the current for fault finding that was making its appearance.

We learn for the first time that " the public have lost the most usef id servant they ever had in the cause of acclimatisation." At least Dr. Campbell says so ; but may I ask who constituted that gentleman an authority on acclimatisation, and whether he is not singular in the belief that he is such. But what has Beck really done for acclimatisation in Canterbury ? He came at a time when he had to deal with matured and maturing trout, and it is only known to a few—for it was kept yery close—liqw inany of the eggs did not arrive ajj maturity by the course of stripping the fish went through at the hands of the three amateurs. He supervised a shipment of American salmon ova received in splendid condition, and which only required the attention for which he was paid to hatch out successfully; He has reared some pheasants, and he has caught some hares, which in my opinion should have been jugged down at once, instead of being distributed. Now can Mr Beck's most ardent admirer say what more lie lias done ? Against this we have the fact that by his want of knowledge he used material which, in the absence of attention, caused the boxes to overflow and the wlute fiish to be lost; and we have also proof positive by his own admission, that when he read the strictures on his conduct in the news-

papers, he went to the fish-house and placed the remnant of those fish, some twelve or fourteen, either on the ground or in the race, and one place was just as good as another, as it was well known that the salmon in the latter would soon make small work of the fry. Now when it is remembered that the proceeds of two trout alone have stocked the Canterbury rivers, what might not have been the result had these fourteen young fish been looked after, and safely placed in the lake they were to have been sent to, instead of being destroyed ; and the more the pity, as they were sent here simply in the cause of acclimatisation without expense to the Society. Dr. Campbell, on ex parte information, wishes it to be believed that no remarks were made about Beck's carelessness in connection with the white fisli at the meeting when their loss was reported. I have taken some trouble to learn the disposition of members that day in the room, and find that Mr Wallace sat at one corner at the lower end of the tabic ; that the curater was seated on a sofa with some members at the end of the room; that when not only one but four members spoke about the treatment of these fish, Mr Wallace was turned sideways, engaged in passing remarks with a member and the curator on the sofa., and that those who were closely listening not only heard the dissatisfaction expressed, but also the words "they have simply been murdered." So much for the insinuation against the unfortunate reporter—whom the gallant doctor desirous of giving a dig because he merely did his duty—supposes that he had invented the paragraph. Referring to this matter, Dr. Campbell says, "Mr Fan* told me himself that no such remarks were uttered." As Mr Farr was sitting in the immediate vicinity of those members who sjioke, and must have heard all that passed, I should like the doctor to re-write those words, giving anything more that may have been added at the time when Mr Farr is said to have so spoken to him. Dr. Campbell openly challenges a writer to prove a single distortion of a fact in his letters. The learned doctor is quite right, for he has not even been within a coocy of a single fact so that it would be impossible for him to distort one; but I take up his challenge, and tell him as plainly as I can pen it, that personally he knows nothing whatever about what he has been writing. That he has accepted a one-sided version of this dispute from one who has accused some members to others of expressions they never uttered, and that from the date of Beck's appointment up to the present time Dr. Campbell's noticeable partiality for the man would lead many to doubt whether he is competent to give an impartial opinion of him. When the disagreement with Mr Johnston, the late curator (who could, if you like, point with pride to what he had done in the cause of acclimatisation here) took place, he had no more bitter opponent in the Council than the doctor, mainly on the ground that he was disobedient to orders ; but now when Dr. Campbell's action during his year of office when he directed and consulted with the curator, did not meet with sufficient approval at the hands of the subscribers, as to induce them to re-elect him, we have that gentleman taking up the cudgels on behalf of Mr Johnston's successor, who plainly refused to allow those in authority to give him a mild instruction, no matter how mildly put, and this uncalled for interference, though it might be characterised by many as exhibiting exceeding bad taste, must leave but one inference to all, viz., the presence of "Scotch blood " in one case and not in the other. This is a long letter, but I haven't told half —particularly about the first of the row; however, now that the "blood" is "up," I shall doubtless have the opportunity of writing in reply. Yours, &c, ONE OE THE PUBLIC. Christchurch, May 31st.