WAR MUSEUM DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 712, 11 July 1929, Page 1

WAR MUSEUM DISPUTE

Mr. Archey Corrects Inaccuracies

CURATOR’S COMPLETE DENIAL

AN important contribution to the controversy centring- on the responsibility for the alterations and "extras" to the Auckland War Memorial Museum has been made by the curator, Mr. Gilbert Archey, in the form of a letter to TKE SUN.

A short time ago Mr. H. E. Vaile, president of the Auckland Institute and Museum Council, who had been publicly accused of being responsible for alterations, sought a withdrawal of the attack by placing before the public correspondence between him and his accuser. The statements objected to by Mr. Vaile were made by Colonel Dawson, ex-president of the Auckland Returned Soldiers’ Association, who associated himself with Mr. A. S. Bankart, chairman of the Citizens’ War Memorial Committee. In reply to Mr. Vaile’s demand for a retraction, supported by evidence published in The Sun, Mr. Bankart asked that a letter from the architects be published also. This was done, but Mr. Bankart offered no further explanation. Referring to the architects’ letter, Mr. Archey writes as follows: LETTER INACCURATE I wish to correct the inaccuracies contained in the letter from the War Memorial Museum architects to tjie building committee, published in your issue last Thursday. The only alterations to the building which were requested by the Museum Council or myself were—the lowering of the Maori Court to receive the large Thames meeting-house, the provision of skirting to the cases in conformity with those around the halls and an adequate electric installation. The first two were authorised by the War Memorial Committee, while for the latter the Council of the Auckland Institute and Museum is paying nearly £2,000, notwithstanding that it is essentially part of the building. - The architects were present when the building committee authorised the skirtings and strongly recommended their provision as adding materially to the appearance of the halls. Details were published of my supposed instructions and representations as to extras in the library and war trophy hall. I will reply to these in detail now, and am prepared to discuss any of the other matters touched upon, if necessary. A CHARGE REFUTED The library.—Neither I nor the ‘Museum auLhorities* suggested locating the library in the Hall of Memories, as stated in the architects' letter. The suggestion was entirely that of the architects themselves, who, in 1925 or 1926, informed me that as the Hall of Memories had been deleted by the building committee, they proposed placing the library there. On my being asked if the new location was suitable I at first objected that it was even farther away from the administrative section than the original library hall: but when they pointed out that it would be at the head of the lift and therefore readily accessible from the main entrance —and that making the original library an exhibit hall would improve the general circulation of the building by visitors —I agreed that it would be suitable. In discussing the matter I was requested to indicate features which would be desirable, which I did, but I certainly did n'ot indi-, cate my ‘requirements’ nor give any instructions in connection with it, neither did I intimate or imply that the alterations they proposed had been approved, or even considered, by Mr. Vaile.

“The letter further states that the special exhibit cases in the War Trophy Hall were constructed in accordance with my requirements. This is similarly inaccurate. MR. GRIERSON QUOTED “This hall was originally similar to the others, except that it was skylighted, and I had planned the showcases accordingly. i;r. Grierson, however, asked me to defer completion of

MR. GILBERT ARCHEY the show-case details as they were ‘planning improvements to the hall to avoid the monotony of having all the exhibit halls alike.’ I was again invited to discuss details with them, but beyond pointing out that the group area suggested was rather shallow and that the show-case space was considerably reduced by their proposals, I raised no objection, feeling that I should not interfere with their obvious desire to make the War Trophy Hall ‘more monumental in character* (quoting Mr. Grierson’s remark) than the others. “The false ceiling and the laylights in this hall may be an architectural improvement upon the plain skylights oi*iginally intended, but their provision had nothing to do with the show-cases, which are in the same position as I had planned before the hail was altered, and would have been adequately lighted by the plain skylights. In any case I was not invited to discuss this matter. HAD NO AUTHORITY 1 may have criticised the access to a room on the roof —from the architects’ own description it seems to have been a curious arrangement which could hardly pass without comment —• but I certainly did not give any instructions for the provision of a second staircase, nor did I even know that it was to be built. In brief, none of the alterations mentioned in the letter was made by my instructions, for I had no authority to give such, as the architects well knew. I have at times been invited to discuss with them alterations they had under consideration, but I cannot conceive how I can thereby be considered to have authorised them. The only body which could authorise alterations was, of course, the War Memorial Committee. GILBERT ARCHEY.