53G Proceedings. 



A. 



Telegram. 



Waimate 14 12 '74. 



To THE Chairman Govrs. N. Zealand Institute, Wellington. 



I protest against the publication in tlie 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 Canterbury, passed 5th November, 1874. 

 (See pp. 532-3.) 



Two resolutions, passed by the Council of the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury 

 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 

 of that society, protesting against the publication of the paper by Mr. Alexander McKay 

 on the Sumner 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 folloM'ing 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 

 founded on his o^vn observations, I noted it for communication to the Wellington 

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

 read. Had I acted otherwise, by adWsing the suppression of the paper, I consider that 

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



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

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

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

 newspapers. 



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

 Mr. McKay for an explanation of the circumstances, and I now lay the reply before the 

 Board (d). 



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

 by Dr. Haast should 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 reconunend this course for the following reasons : — 



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

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



2. Dr. Haast lias refused to submit his paper to the Board, the secretary of the 

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

 that Dr. Haast retains it until the decision of the Board is known. I have, therefore, 

 had to form my opinion of it from an unauthorised copy, which differs from the paper 

 as read to the society in the suppression of a postscrijit which appeared in the public 

 press. 



3. The portion of the paper now suppressed is of an offensive nature, and is an 

 attempt to disparage the character and discourage the efforts of a member of another 

 affiliated society. 



4. From consideration of the two papers I find that the writers arrive at different 

 conclusions resi)ecting an etlniological question which has already been discussed in 

 pai)er8 before several of the affiliated societies. 



5. Mr. McKay does not attempt to wve any detailed description of the discoveries 

 made wlvile he was employed by Dr. Haast, giving only such a general outline as is 

 necessary to make his views intelligible until his former employer shouhl divulge the 

 result of the explorations, 



James Hector. 

 18 •12-74. 



