Professor J. Macmillan Brown moved that "the Senate desires to place on record its great regret that Sir Robert Stout has seen fit to resign the Chancellorship, and its sense of the deep obligation it is under to him for his conduct of the affairs of the University during the last 20 years . . ." In speaking to his motion, Professor Macmillan Brown paid a very high tribute to the personal worth of the Chancellor and to the splendid services which he had rendered to the cause of education. The Hon Dr Collins (Wellington), in seconding the motion, expressed his regret at the resignation of Sir Robert Stout from a position which he had filled with a degree of conspicuous ability, a charm of manner, and a gentleness of disposition which could only emanate from a man of the highest culture. Professor R.J. Scott then moved the following resolutions: (1) That the Senate proceed with the election of Chancellor. (2) That Professor J. Macmillan Brown be elected.
Professor Macmillan Brown expressed thanks to the Senate for the honour which it conferred upon him.
One uni is enough
The idea of abolishing the University of New Zealand and establishing a degree-conferring university in each of the four chief centres is at the present time academic in more than one sense. Sir Robert Stout’s remarks in his introductory address in Senate have naturally, however, excited some further discussion of a subject which is not likely to be invested with actual importance for at least a quarter of a century. Where within any measurable time are we to find the large sums of money and the valuable permanent endowment requisite for the maintenance and administration of four universities in this little country instead of one? And, assuming that this difficulty can be got over in time, can we be certain that the prestige and standing of our academic degrees will not suffer when once the outer world comes to realise that these degrees are conferred not by the University of New Zealand but by one college located in one town? In short, there is no available money with which to carry out the policy of division. If there were, and if it were to be utilised for that purpose, it would be money ill-spent. — editorial
No suppression for foul-mouth
Thos. Jones pleaded guilty to a charge of using obscene language in Stafford street within the hearing of passersby on December 23. Senior-sergeant Mathieson explained that a complaint had been received at the Police station, and when a constable arrived at the defendant’s residence he found that what was apparently a family disagreement was in progress. The language complained of was used and could be heard by passersby quite easily. The evidence of the constable was
corroborated. The defendant said that he was "pretty far gone” at the time. It was the holiday time. — The Magistrate said that there had evidently been family trouble, but that did not excuse the defendant’s conduct. He would be fined 40 shillings and costs (7s). — The defendant: "Will you keep it out of the papers?" — The Magistrate: "No. Decidedly not on a charge of obscene language."
— ODT, 23.1.1923 (Compiled by Peter Dowden)
