5 3 G Proceedings. 



Telegram. 



Waimate 



A. 



Zealand Institute, 



I protest against the publication in the Transactions of proceeding of A. McKay's 

 paper in which the principal result of my excavations in the Moa-bone Point Cave are 

 contained and my own publications forestalled he having obtained knowledge of the facts 

 as my paid servant and having used the same without my knowledge or consent. 



Julius Haast 



President Philosophical Institute 



Canterbury. 



B. 



Resolution by the Philosophical Institute of Canter 

 (See pp. 532-3.) 



Two resolutions, passed by the Council of the Phil 

 on 1st October, 1874. (See pp. 531-2.) 



C. 



Memorandum for the Board of Governors of the New Zealand Institute. 



At the request of the Canterbury Philosophical Institute I submit certain resolutions 



iL at J ociet y> protesting against the publication of the paper by Mr. Alexander McKay 

 on the bumner Cave, also, a protest by Dr. Haast, of the same nature, addressed to the 

 Chairman of the Board (a), and I beg to offer the following opinion thereon :— 



In April last Mr. McKay, who was then in the employment of the Geological Survey 

 Department, showed me the paper in question, and, seeing that it contained views 

 touncied on his own observations, I noted it for communication to the Wellington 

 FnUosophical Society, of which he was elected member in July, before the paper was 

 read. Mad I acted otherwise, by advising the suppression of the paper, I consider that 

 1 should have been presuming on my official relations with Mr. McKay 



1 saw no reason for taking such a course, and the paper was put down for reading by 

 the council of the society, but, owing to pressure of other business, was not actually 

 read till 8th August. During the interval the title was repeatedly advertised in the 



iic\vsp3iT)crs» 



On receiving the protest from the Canterbury Philosophical Institute, I applied to 

 Baaid ( ) m ex P lanatlon of the circumstances, and I now lay the reply before the 



I have also carefully compared the two papers, and advise the Board that the protest 



7 .ft v a w ° uld , be disallowed, and that the Canterbury Philosophical Institute 



should be informed that their resolutions of 1st October, 1874, are founded on an 



erroneous conception of Mr. McKay's paper, which they had not seen when the 



resolutions were passed. I recommend this course for the following reasons :— 



1 Mr. McKay s paper is not yet published for circulation, but Dr. Haast has issued 

 Jus paper as a pamphlet, and thereby effectually secured himself from being forestalled. 

 r in t^p\i has refused to submit his paper to the Board, the secretary of the 

 Canterbury Philosophical Institute telegraphing, in answer to my request for the paper, 



wf *i a - m - 8 lfc ^H the decision of the Board is known . I have, therefore, 



JfrJS T?K my °*T °- n "I 1 * from ^ unauthorised copy, which differs from the paper 

 press * 7 m 8n PP rei *ion of a postscript which appeared in the public 



a t+iL?£ 5^i° n ° f i he P aper . now , su PPressed is of an offensive nature, and is an 

 affihated Society SC cbaracter and discourage the efforts of a member of another 



contllS re^oZfT °\^ tW -° P aperS - 1 find that the writers arrive at different 



ra™\eTe^ which has aWy been d ™ d * 



made while 'h?™™ T* ^^l *° T gi ve an y detailed description of the discoveries 

 nTcessaS to makTU £ ^ ^nPU^ ^8 onl y su ch a general outline as is 

 St o7t£e e^loraW W3 mtelh 8 lble untl1 ** f <™ employer 8 should divulge the 



181274. 



James Hector. 



