FORESTRY SCHOOL.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 July 1921, Page 4

FORESTRY SCHOOL.

AUCKLAND COMMENT

AUCKLAND, Jttly 18. The “New Zealand Herald” to-day sa ys:—Having been compelled to abandon the original purpose of a triumphant decision upon the Forestry School question, the Canterbury deputation to Sir Francis Bell no doubt looked to him for at least sympathy in their grievances. They were not disappointed, their faith in his support of tlmir claims was fully confirmed, and in reassuring them the Minister described the obstinacy and obliquity of Auckland in terms that plainly delighted his enthusiastic audience. So greatly was he influenced by the atmosphere of the gathering that Sir Francis Bell, usually so calm and judicial, invented some fantastic suggestions to demonstrate the ludicrousness of the Auckland attitude. Probably most amusing was his grave statement that before replying to the telegram from the Auckland members of Parliament, Mr Massey communicated with him. No one of ordinary intelligence supposed that he did not, nor for that matter was it imagined in Auckland that Sir Francis Bell received the first intimation of the Prime Miniter’s decision when the reply received- in Auckland was published. As for the “absolutely ludicrous” idea that the Senate should decide the location of the School, it may he observed that the unanimous decision o‘ the Senate two years ago was not dictation to the Government, as the Minister pretends, but was described and intended as a recommendation from the body responsible for the conduct of higher education, and as such was entitled to® receive the serious consideration of the Government equally with the advice of other experts. When the authors of the famous telegram have an opportunity to explain their action, they will no doubt tf> able to disabuse the Minister’s mind of the idea that he was suspected of disloyalty to the

Prime Minister. Their purpose was clearly explained at the time. They observed activity in Canterbury to engineer the Cabinet- into a decision, and

used the only available means to forestall this “nefarious design.” The term is the Minister’s own choice. Far from resenting their interference, Sir Francis 801 l should he grateful. Had Cabinet proceeded to a decision under his presidency he might have felt some diffidence in view of his professed champion ship of Canterbury's claim in participating in its deliberations. As it is, when Mr Massey resumes the chair, the Commissioner of State Forests will he at liberty to advocate the case for Canterbury without restraint. To-night’s “Star” says:—lt is a fixed idea amwig many our of southern friends that Auckland is hoplessly paro-

chial. just as it used to he a fixed idea among Englishmen that the Irishman wait a funny fellow, who went through life dressed in a green tail-coat and Slice breeches, twirling a shillelagh. The fact is that generally speaking ihere is in respect to parochialism little !o choose between lour centres ol New Zealand. But just now Christ-

lurch -seems to he sulfering from a

bad attack of the complaint, as exemplified in the humorously ferocious attacks on Auckland made by the Christchurch “Press.” ft arises out of a controversy over the Forestry School. Canterbury wanks it and so does Auckland. Christchurch is annoyed that Auckland should dare to want it, and some of [lie expressions of annoyance betray a distressing loss of temper. One cause of annoyance is that Auckland should have appealed to Mr Massey; ns if appeal to him had not become a common practice in New Zealand, and as if Christchurch would hesitate to take finch a step if it thought of it. Now we have Sir Francis Bell receiving a. deputation on the subject in Christchurch, and making a statement, rich in gay partiality For Canterbury, and touched with levity at the expense of the University Semite. As an entertainment Sir Francis Bell’s statementmay have been interesting ; as a contribution to the clarifying of the situation, it was worth while.