WAR MEMORIAL EXTRAS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 704, 2 July 1929, Page 1

WAR MEMORIAL EXTRAS

Attack on Institute President

MR. VAILE SEEKS RETRACTION

Some Illuminating Correspondence

DESPITE numerous efforts, Mr. H. E. Vaile has been unable to secure a retraction of recent statements made against him as president of the Auckland Institute and Museum. These, he declares, were false. They were made publicly, but have not been withdrawn, either publicly or privately. _ TT -r, Lieutenant - Colonel T. H. Dawson, ex-president of the Auckland Returned Soldiers’ Association, made the charge resented by Mr. Vaile. In explanation of it he associated himself with Mr. A. S. Bankart, chairman of the War Memorial Citizens' Committee.

Determined that his position shall be made clear to the public, Mr. aile has handed to The Sun correspondence which passed between him and his critics. The letters, he remarks, are both interesting and illuminating.

M the course of an address at the usual meeting of the Returned Solium’ Association on April 30, Colonel Jihwson, in discussing the progress |it the museum, said that “ .... as tine went on the memorial features «rere lost sight of in the enthusiasm ot the members of the Auckland Institute for a great museum. No one of those members had been more assiduous in this diverted purpose than the present head of the institute, who to chiefly responsible for the nonmemorial ‘extras’ which had made the museum so embarrassingly costly.” To this and other remarks Mr. Villa took exception. On May 2 he wrote the following letter to Colonel Dawson: We have known each other for a rery long time, but on election morn--3* a statement appeared in the “Herald” as having been made by you. which, in at least two respects, is possly and hopelessly untrue. JOLONEL DAWSON CHALLENGED First, you state that I am response for the non-memorial extras which have made the building so eostly. What excuse you can have for asking such a statement I cannot imagine, especially after my call upon pu the other day, but as you apparently do not accept my account of

like you, in justice to me, to refer the matter to the Citizens* War Memorial Committee, of which, as I have already toid you, I have never been an officer, and ask them what extra either myself or any other member of the Auckland Institute and Museum lias suggested or encouraged.

If you can prove that any of us is responsible, either directly or indirectly, for a single penny being spent •jn extras of any kind, I will willingly forfeit a subscription of ten guineas • o your association. As a lawyer you must krow that, to say the least of it is unfair to make a statement without the slightest basis of fact or truth. “The other statement made is that all *the cases are arranged except fhe war exhibits. I defy you to prove that any case has been arranged except one or two sets of animals removed from the old museum. A number c ‘f exhibits have been thrown into of the cases for storage purges, but none of them is arranged, ‘hig is a minor point, but as untrue as the one above mentioned, I think that, as an officer and a s’cntleman, you will be doing no more than what is necessary as a common “Ct of decency, in correcting the statement you have made after you have thoroughly investigated the matter. 1 think you will find that I was away England when the final details of Jh® building were settled and the contract signed. “Colonel Dawson neglected to reply,” Sa ys Mr. Vaile, “but, after a reminder, the following letter was received from on May 10": “LETTING OFF STEAM” Your letters to hand. I did not answer your first one as from its tone 1 thought that you were merely letting steam after the election. However, i 1 am certain that no words of mine : ;a J any effect on that event. 1 told you pefore that we were too busy just men to bother about the election, had * e wished, and we did not concern ourselves with it. ,As to your first complaint. Our in°rmant was Mr. A. S. Bankart. He i a man whom I deeply respect and s aose word is good enough for me. As i Xi? OUr secon d complaint that is too to comment on. Your re- * as to mv conduct as an officer me cold. 1 am quite aware that -'all far below the standard of the officer. But, on the other hand, •jion’t think you can claim to be a competent judge. You see you m*seci your opportunities of qualifythat post. r °u have said that you are sincere r? your desire that the cenotaph and VP* °f Memories shou’d be restored. 'r y well. Letter writing and stateto the Press won’t help any. Qe money that might have been used spent. What about heading a fresh with a decent-sized cheque? In „,f 8e Present times that may be a sacBut that will be nothing comthe sacr ifi C e of the men r n °* e memory the building is supcommemorate. Give this SSestion a thought. MR. VAILES REQUEST Vaile then wrote to Mr. C. R. secretary of the Citizens* War,

Memorial Committee, stating that, having been frequently accused of ordering extras at the building, he had twice asked the chairman to give him a chance of clear himself, but without result. The architects refused to discuss the question. He believed that a majority of committeemen would consider It unfair that the whole of the blame for everything which had gone wrong should be vented on him personally, and he therefore begged respectfully to request that with the chairman’s consent he should be supplied with particulars of the extras stated to have been ordered by him. The matter, he concluded, could

then be brought before the next committee meeting. On May 10 Mr. Bankart replied through Mr. Ford, regretting that there should be any controversy. Mr. Vaile then wrote again to Mr. Ford agreeing that it was a pity that any difference should exist. “Mr. Bankart may take credit for everything in connection with the War Memorial, but there Is no reason why I should be selected to act in the capacity of scapegoat,” he added. "Everything would be all right if Mr. Bankart would sign for publication a statement to the effect that (a) I have never at any time ordered or suggested any extras or alterations of any kind to the War Memorial; (b) neither the Auckland Institute nor I have ever made any demands ‘insistent’ or otherwise upon the Citizens’ Committee, and (c) that the nonprovision of a cenotaph and court of honour is in no sense due to me. As he is unlikely to do this, all I ask in the meantime is compliance with, or refusal of, my request to be supplied with details of the extras alleged to have been ordered by me." MR. BANKART'S REPLY

In a reply on May 27" Mr. Bankart said that Mr. Vaile was labouring under a misapprehension In asserting that the writer had made the statement about the alterations in connection with the contract. “No such statement has ever been made by me,” said Mr. Bankart. He enclosed a statement from the architect regarding extras. On May 29 Mr. Vaile replied as follows: — “I, in turn, exceedingly regret that you should appear annoyed that I «*ek to clear the institute and myself of certain false charges which are by no means ’imaginary.’

“In addition to the daily papers, attacks have been made upon me in other journals. In a daily newspaper you attribute the omission of the Cenotaph to the ’insistent demands’ of the Institute to be allowed to spend its own money. But I defy you to prove that any demand whatever was made. _ , . “Further. Mr. T. H. Dawson m his impudent reply to my letter regarding his outrageous attack of the Ist inst.. says: ‘Our informant was Mr. A. S. Bankart.* . , _ . _ . ~ “You appear to think that I should accept the grossly untrue statements which have been published in a spirit of humility, and that the institute 2-nd myself should meekly submit, but I suggest that most people regard as a craven creature a man who does not defend himself.”

No reply came to hand, so Mr. \aile ; on June 20, wrote as follows: “REPEATED ATTACKS”

“Xo reply has been made to my letter to you of 29th ult., and anxious as I am to avoid getting to loggerheads, I am not willing to let matters stay as they are The elections are now well behind us, and there is no reason why the truth should not be told. “Especially in view of the repeated attacks of certain weekly papers, you would, were you in my position, agree that there is no occasion for the Museum or myself to take the blame of the waste of thousands of pounds in useless extras. This was due as we all know, to the apathy of the Citizens Committee in not keeping a tight enough hold over the architects and contractors. „ - “1 think it is for you. as chairman of tho committee, to do the fair thing and explain to the public that the loss of this money and the consequent omission of the cenotaph was not attributable in any sense to the Auckland Institute and Museum or to myseit. Otherwise, I must get this fact stated by other means.

; “Surely Mr. Dawson is incorrect j when he suggests that you inspired his tirade. j “On June 26,” says Mr. Vaile, “Mr. ; Bankart replied denying any waste of money and requesting me to address any future correspondence to him offi- | dally as chairman of the Citizens’ j Committee, but makes no attempt to ; justify his or Colonel Dawson’s j charges against me. REVIEW OF THE FACTS “Briefly, the position is this: The I chairman of the Citizens’ Committee ! made a charge through the Press which he is unable to justify, and makes no attempt to explain. Accord- ; ing to Colonel Dawson, he inspired the latter’s entirely unjustifiable personal j attack upon me. I “The history of the movement is as i follows: | “In April, 1913, a deputation from | the Council of the Auckland Institute and Museum, headed by Sir James | Parr (Mayor and president of the In--1 stitute), waited on Mr. Massey asking for a grant to a new building. We again waited on him a year later. In j 1919 (after six years of work) the ; War Memorial proposals having been | reduced to two (viz., a monument or ; a museum), at a meeting of citizens I convened by his Worship the Mayor, it I was decided to adopt the Museum as i the War Memorial, and this was en- | dorsed by the Returned Soldiers’ As- ■ sociation on April 30, 1920. ! “On December 15, 1920, the Institute j and Museum having secured the present site, and having collected every possible war trophy and between fifty and sixty thousand pounds in cash, we decided to hand the whole undertaking over to a special committee to be known as the Citizens' War Memorial Committee, of which Sir James Gunson was appointed chairman. “About four years ago, on Sir James Gunson’s departure for England, Mr. A. S. Bankart was appointed to the chair. The loss of thousands of pounds that have been wasted in senseless extras cannot be attributed to any attempted interference by anyone connected with the Museum which has had no say whatever in the erection of the building, but to quite another cause altogether. “As the contract was let without provision for lighting the building, the Citizens’ Committee has compelled the Museum to pay about £2,000 for this out of its slender funds. I have been behind the movement for 17 years.”