Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2015, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
In order to make new content available faster this work has been uploaded but does not have comprehensive name authority mark up for sub-works and corresponding authors. We will endeavour to add this mark up as soon as possible.
Congratulations to Massey College on their Joynt Scroll win, and our sincere thanks, particularly to Tom Bell, Ivo Dean and Peter Roberts, for their hospitality. Congratulations also to Bledisloe Medallist, Kevin O'Sullivan and to the best debater, "Ike." Patterson. The standard throughout was excellent and Vic speakers were not at all disgraced. Not since 1943 have we won the Scroll but, after these seven fallow years, let us hope that the future will see a truer Victoria ranking in N.Z.U. debate.
"That nationalisation of the land is in the best interests of New Zealand" was affirmed by Rod Smith and Mike Brittain (AUC) against Kevin O'Connor and Ian Inkster (Massey). Rod Smith's dramatic, deliberate style gripped an audience unsympathetic to his argument. The Auckland team's ingenious interpretation of land nationalisation as Crown ownership with leasehold tenure was mildly disputed by Kevin O'Connor; nonetheless, he met his opponents adequately on their own ground with well-developed argument and sincere conviction. Unlike his leader, Ian Inkster did not dispute the issue according to the Auckland team's interpretation of the subject.
Jim Milbum and Maurice O'Brien debated for Victoria against Ike Patterson and Rodney Grater (OU): "That World Government is a practicable and desirable goal." Opening tor Victoria, Jim delivered a lively speech, nicely phrased. However, he did not appear to come really to grips with the issue and propose a solid comprehensive affirmative case, nor did he thrust home his arguments to the hilt as did his second speaker. Several times, Maurice neatly attacked the negative case and from the wreck developed a constructive argument for the affirmative. His vigorous delivery of concise argument provoked interjection which he turned to advantage. Taken by itself this was a first-class debating speech—the best the writer has heard Maurice—but perhaps it was not the type of speech needed to complement his leader's treatment of the subject.
Whatever dearth of solid argument there was in Jim Milburn's opening speech was redeemed by effective wrecking of opposing arguments and a trite summary of the affirmative case in his reply.
An impressive voice and fine phrasing were employed by Ike Patterson, leader of the Otago team, to display his skilful and shrewd debating technique.
While the standard was very high throughout, there was a fairly wide margin of points between individual speakers and it was surprising not to find Victoria's representatives placed respectively higher in the individual rating of contestants.
Kevin O'Sullivan is the first Aucklander to win the Bledisloe Medal since Kenneth Melvin in
Second equal were the student newspapermen, "Ike" Patterson (OU) and Kevin O'Connor (Massey). Patterson's sound legal opinion on the Treaty of Waitangi may not have been broadminded enough to be good oratory. Factors other than the strictly legal were ignored but only a speaker of his ability could have won an audience in a speech which included a dissertation on two constitutional cases.
Kevin O'Connor soon converted his listeners to admiration of the founder of the Corriedale, James Little, who "earned undying dignity by keeping close to this cold planet, Earth." In part really poetic, this speech deserved a slightly better fate.
Speaking third, Jim Milbum made the first attempt at classical oratory and must have gone close to a place with his oration on Sir Julius Vogel. This speech contained many of the hallmarks of great oratory, but probably lost its effectiveness through a change in the speaker's style. Over-careful pausation led some to believe him insincere. Nevertheless, Vogel was depicted as a life-like figure.
Sir George Grey received a balanced treatment from Alec Williams, whose delivery, however, was not impressive, possibly because he spoke after the ultimate winner. The tiring audience appeared to know Grey well enough for them to be moved by this accurate account of his life and character.
Of the others, Lincoln's Lindsay Smith, in his speech on Waitaki's Hugh Milner, was the most promising orator.
Although the weather was far from attractive, the Political Science Society had a succesful first evening on July 13 with Dr. J. F. Kahn as guest speaker and an attendance who followed the speaker with interest and, finally, with a cross-fire of questions.
Dr. Kahn knows Germany from the Weimar and Hitler days, as perhaps few others. His recent visit has enabled him to link past with present, and even to venture on some estimate of future developments. He talked, so he said, to hundreds of people in all walks of life—in Western Germany and in Berlin, both East and West. What follows is no more than a brief resume of some of the most important points he raised.
What appears to be most indicative of the German mentality since the war. Is the complete absence of any collective or even individual feeling of "guilt." They are today half-amused, half-penitent onlookers at the East-West drama, in which their own fate is involved, but they will not accept any blame for what went before. The one point of agreement with Stalin seems to be in his dictum that "Hitlers come and Hitlers go, but Germany remains." How can Germany be guilty? It was the allies who had helped Hitler to power—why blame "us" for having him?
What of democracy in Germany? Dr. Kahn says there is nowadays "more talk about democracy in Germany and less belief in it than ever before." And that, he thinks, is equally true of East and West. To say that the Eastern Republic is popular is simply mockery, seeing the millions of refugees who are still pouring in from the East. Dr. Kahn ascribes the antipathy against the Soviets, prevalent in East no less than West, to the reports from the thousands of German ex-prisoners in Russia. The Eastern Government is as alien to the Germans as the Bonn regime; the former is a Communist regime forced on the Germans with all the trappings of mass propaganda, the latter is labouring under the shadow of its unfortunate Weimar predecessor. Already Dr. Adenauer (Federal Chancellor) has been called "Chancellor of the Allies." His reply is to be as nationalistic as he dare be. De-nazification, says Dr. Kahn, was and is a farce, for the simple reason that in Germany practically everybody was a Nazi—and the better trained experts were so without exception. Result ? They are in influential posts again, and not only in the West. In the West, it is true, pseudofascist groups are vociferous and less bridled; in compensation, the Eastern Republic is allowed to be officially more rabidly nationalistic. Economically, the West is at the mercy of Capitalism unbridled—social conditions are poor, wages low, collective bargaining logging far behind Western Europe. The shops are full, but only for the rich. This is not so noticeable in Eastern Berlin. There shops are emptier and people have to work for a currency only one-seventh to one-tenth the value of the Western Mark. Does that mean (it was asked, of the speaker) that in the East there is more social justice? Dr, Kahn was not convinced that that was the case. Poverty in the East is as rampant as in the West, and it is a mistake to think that inequalities there have ceased to exist. In either sector, some people live in affluence or at least in great comfort, while the mass of the people have little but hard work.
This is a grim picture of Germany indeed. Germany hates her occupiers, the Yanks, because they said they came as liberators and behaved like victors (and the Germans say, "if that is democracy, we don't want it"), the British, because they are economic competitors trying to strangle Germany's recovery, the Russians because they are Russians and "Inferior," "infesting pure German blood, so that 18 million Germans will be lost to Germany, which means, to Europe, which means to civilisation." Germany is not to blame for the war (only perhaps, for losing it, and even that was not necessarily Hitler's fault. . . . ) or for the atrocities in the extermination camps which never took place, anyway, because no German government would have permitted them. To prove this point: The Fuehrer was too humane even to use the Atom Bomb, which is a German invention and could have been used by him. The Yanks stole the bomb, after their victory, and used it; the Democrats, not Hitler, are to be blamed again.
Is there no light? One lonely elderly woman told Dr. Kahn that she felt ashamed of what Germany had done—One, mind you, of all the hundreds to whom he put this same question. Secondly, the French are better occupiers than the rest. The reason? "They've learned from us how to behave as occupiers," suggest the charming Germans. Dr. Kahn says this "preference" is largely due to the fact that the French did not admit refugees from the East, so that their economy is in a better position. One member of the audience tried to point out that the British Occupation Army was, to a distressingly large degree, in jail "for quite natural reasons." This astonishing state of affairs may account for the fact that so few of them are seen around Germany these days.
The German problem has not been, solved, and its solution will never be accepted by the Germans as long as It Is not "Made in Germany." Dr. Kahn's realism 'was distressing, but a masterly example of objective reporting which the Society hopes to maintain in the coming talks of this year.
It is hoped that Mr. James Thorn, until recently N.Z. High Commissioner in Canada, will be the next speaker to the Society,
And so we prepare to prevent wax. Throughout New Zealand, thousands of young men are willing to volunteer for service overseas. It is a cheering thought that so many of them have heard the call to defend the cause and principles of the United Nations, and straightway will go to do battle for it.
This is a noble sentiment: but we would be lucky were it true in more than one case out of a hundred.
One of the alarming things about war has always been its appeal to the "adventurous spirit" of man; it has always been able—even when the reverse was flagrantly true—to masquerade as a grand pageant, noble and patriotic. For this reason, to answer a call for something more stimulating than the humdrum round of living, men have been prepared to fight.
One of the first things we should do to help prevent wars is to do away with this glamorous view of war. In fact, it is a dirty business at the best; at the worst, it leads to a degradation of the human spirit which is frightening. We will undoubtedly be told that these men are going forth to fight for UN—ninety nine out of every hundred of them will possibly be unable to answer a simple series of questions about what United Nations means: most will be going for the adventure, for the break from ordinary living. It's a pretty appalling thought that it js in this spirit we drift into war.
We can at least stop being hypocritical about these things, if nothing else. Let's stop pretending that most men volunteer for a crusade: some may, and for their opinions—much as we may think them disastrous—we should have some respect; they are willing to risk their necks for them. But for the others who can regard modern warfare as a pleasant little world tour with a spice of adventure tossed in, we must have a sinking pity.
From here on, it looks like the politician's and the jingoist's paradise, and the devil take the levelheaded.
The next issue of Salient will be the Tournament issue, and we repeat the plea made elsewhere in this issue, for clubs to get their information in by the end of this week.
We will also print in next week's issue some comments from the Tournament delegates about travelling and anything else they have to talk about.
So far, only three clubs have handed in any gen. Please Make Sure that Yours Come, in!
Sir, At a recent meeting of the Students Association a certain Mr. Goddard was speaking on the Communist Dissolution Bill and in the course of his impassioned address he mentioned something about the Liberal Clubs in the Australian Universities all being opposed to the Bill. As one who holds a sort of watching brief for the Australian University Liberal Clubs in New Zealand I must ask you to publish the following extract from the minutes of the 2nd Annual Council of the A.U.L.F. "Realising the necessity for the future security of Australia that the Australian Communist Party should be dissolved and its members excluded from employment in the Public Service and from positions of responsibility and power in such industrial organisations as are of vital importance to the security and defence of Australia, and realising further the difficulties attendent upon the effective execution of the provisions of an Act by which the above mentioned purposes might be fully carried out, this Council declares.....(1) That the Australian Communist party is an anti-Australian anti-British Party, the aims of which are to overthrow by force the present Australian democratic system; (2) That it supports fully the move of the Federal Government in their introduction of a Bill to dissolve the Communist party; (3) That it endorses fully all the provisions of the Bill at present before the House of Representatives.
Hoping this will clear away any misunderstandings which Mr. Goddard has probably caused,
We took the liberty of showing this letter before publication to Mr. Goddard, who denies that he claimed that all Liberal Clubs in Australian Universities were opposed to the Bill. He merely quoted the instance of the Melbourne University Liberal Club, which is still, according to student paper "Farrago," of the opinion that the Bill is a bad thing. Ed.
Sir. Colonial Governments should extend human rights to their territories and leave Koreans to settle their own dispute.
The Crown Colonist
In Mauritius the situation is similar. "A Bill has been published to provide that, when a person baa been convicted of sedition in any newspaper, publication of the paper may be prohibited for a period of up to three years. The proprietor, printer or publisher may be prohibited from editing, writing for, or taking part in the production of any newspaper for three years; and the printing press may be seized."
Dr. Thompson speaking at Melbourne
The conservative Pacific Islands Monthly said, early
Sir, Your report, of the walkout at the S.G.M. is, I suggest, somewhat misleading. The motion regarding W.F.D.Y. was put forward only three weeks after a decisive vote of 119-57 at the A.G.M. Previous motions for disaffiliation were repeated, I concede, but not after such a short interval, and not after such a clear vote (two I traced were 80-101 and 75-81).
There are at least 57 W.F.D.Y. supporters whose opinions we must respect but at the same time I think these people should let the subject drop unless they can both (1) assemble new matter and (2) secure an audience a lot larger than their own strength of 57 at the A.G.M. Otherwise, the interest and patience of the opposition section of the audience is lost as it was last week.
What I found a great deal more disconcerting was a report of the same meeting's Korean resolution which was front page news in the "People's Voice" published the day before the "Salient" report. I do not think the meeting was aware that it was being reported to an "outside paper, and I suggest that a clear ruling on newspaper reporting is desirable for future general meetings of the Association.
(The report of the walkout is we suggest, not in the slightest misleading. This letter is, though; for the WFDY motion, if passed, would not have reaffiliated the Association—it merely suggested that we keep in touch. It can by no means be called a misleading report.
Was Mr. Cook aware that the AGM was also reported.—by the Southern Cross! Did he Question it at that time! Ed.)
We give here more opinions on the talk recently given by Father Duggan. We have ourselves registered no opinion either way: If you wish to do so, please now limit your comments to letter length—that is, not more than 250 words long.
The only school of thought' which Dr. Duggan will admit to the status of Philosophy is Realism. Philosophy, for Dr. Duggan, is merely Metaphysics in all its ramifications.
When he was asked whether he could, without committing linguistic and syntactical errors, define metaphysics as anything other than a figment of mans' imagination, i.e., as non-sense. Dr. Duggan replied that metaphysics was the study of infinite being.
Let us consider these two symbols, "infinite" and "being" (N.B. for the sake of brevity, please note that in the verb "to be" are included its other forms—"to exist," "to become," etc.). To avoid being wearisome we will quite hypothetically assume a meaning for "infinite," and will concentrate upon "being." "Being" can be used as a verbal noun, but where as other verbal nouns, e.g., "sitting", assert an activity, the verbal noun, "being" asserts a thing that is. "Being" can also be used as a non-verbal noun as in "human being," c.f. the use of "sitting" in "a sitting of eggs." This is an arbitrary usage, however, and if Dr. Duggan is using "being" in this way he will have to face up to the fact that "I am a human being" la equivalent to "I am I", "Eggs are a Bitting" la equivalent to "Eggs are eggs," and that "Metaphysics is being" is equivalent to "Metaphysics is metaphysics." His definition will therefore be merely a tautology. The way to avoid this is to commit the error in language of attempting to use. "being" both as a verbal noun, asserting something that is, and as a non-verbal noun which can be qualified by an adjective such as "infinite."
But, if "being" is to be used at all as a verbal noun, the user should realise the implications of his act, for it is demonstrable that the verb "to be" has no meaning of itself, but that it is merely oil for the wheels of language. When used as a copula, as in "the table is red," the verb "to be" is not a necessary symbol, since "the table is red" asserts no more than does "red table." When, too, the verb "to be" is used in the assertory sense—"the table is (red)"—It is again not a necessary symbol, for "table is" asserts no more than does "table." When I say "I love" I assert "love" and not "I", and when I say "I am", I aasert "I" and not "am"—again the verb "to be" is an unnecessary symbol.
It is self-evident that if a symbol is not necessary it, is meaningless, and the verb "to be" is thus, strictly speaking, meaningless of Itself. It is merely a, linguistic convention. "Being," a verbal noun, part of the verb "to be", is therefore a meaningless symbol—non-sense, By his own definition, Dr. Duggan's metaphysics, his Philosophy, is the study of infinite nonsense—for "infinite being" he might as well substitute "infinite glug"—it would mean just as much.
Thus the language in which Dr. Duggan's philosophy, and, indeed, all philosophy, is conceived is, to say the very least, defective—defective not only in that it is open to erroneous use even in the hands of those who realise its defects, but also in that its very structure assumes the meta-physic philosophy which it is used to Justify.
It would appear then that the study of the problems presented by this language, the realisation of its shortcomings, and the clarification of its ambiguities, would be fundamental to any serious study of philosophy; and yet Dr. Duggan dismisses this linguistic study with a shrug of the shoulders, and, apparently in blissful ignorance of the limitations of the medium in which it is conceived holds up metaphysics as the philosophical study.
If anyone wants to talk about philosophy (even if not philosophically). It seems to me that there are various requirements, such as, calmness, clarity and reasonableness which should be fulfilled. Further, the speaker should not purport to be able to sum up and discard any recognised philisopher in one sentence. Only too seldom did Father Duggan fulfil these requirements in his recent talk to the College.
On the other hand, his contention that the mind is impressed with the knowledge "that there is something" in existence as well as that mind would seem to have considerable value as a postulate.
It seems to me that many of the difficulties arise when one tries to proceed from these. For instance it is difficult to know how, if at all, one can pass from the concept of something to validly asserting its objective existence other than as a concept Father Duggan seemed occasionally to think that this transition is validly possible, but he could not, I thought, satisfactorily answer my second question, which was directed to this issue. (I am not saying that Father Duggan should have been able to prove such a valid transition, but rather I am saying that if he cannot then he should, at the least, be a little more circumspect in his talking).
I would like to Bay here that, to the best of my recollection, I put my first question by beginning: "If one takes the position that a thing is a summation of qualities" this is quite different from saying "Being is a summation of qualities."
A linguistic approach to philosophical problems also falls to show how we can validly proceed from concept to object, but it may help to clear the ground.
And lastly, the harangues into which the discussion degenerated were deplorable at such a time and place. Philosophy is not like that, and controversy about philosophy need not be so. A talk about the need for philosophy will never convince anyone of that need if it becomes an altercation. So the altercation distressed me, because I think, notwithstanding, that one of our great needs is for philosophy.
The business of the Sports Council Is to be taken up with this Executive as, due to the atrocious mismanagement of the last Exec nothing could be done.
Tournament will soon be on us again. This time we are looking forward to a better showing, although some Clubs have not done too well recently. It would appear that more practice is necessary so get stock Into It and don't let's see such a miserable performance as we had last time.
On the occasion of the annual Oxford - Cambridge athletic meet earlier this year, Roger Bannister, England's star miler, had a plan.
It was his intention to dead-heat with a friend of his. However, during the course of the third lap. Bannister was forced to re-examine the situation. A Cambridge runner was streaking away from the field. Roger got into gear, lore away and overhauled the upstart, and went away to win in near-record time.
And the Cambridge runner? His name was Clem Hawke, a year or so well known around V.U.C. running circles.
If Tournament is to obtain adequate coverage in college newspapers, clubs must, repeat must, hand in all material to "Salient" Room or letter-rack by 12 Noon, Saturday, August 5.
Last Thursday, July 27, saw a large crowd gather in C3 to hear Professor Florence, patron of the Maths and Physics Society, give his last address before retiring. He spoke on the life and work of the famous New Zealander Lord Rutherford, under whom Professor Florence had worked for some years as a research student and lecturer. The speaker reviewed two of the books he had purchased as part of a prize won at Canterbury College. One was "Radioactive Transformations," the work in which Lord Rutherford gained fame, and the other "Heroes and Hero-Worship." In tracing Rutherford's life, from N.Z. to England, Montreal, and back to England, it was interesting to hear extracts from some of Rutherford's own letters concerning his own discoveries, and the controversies which he raised among scientists, particularly the antagonism of Lord Kelvin. During the period
He was always a man of unbounded energy, and with very good health, and his capabilities and enthusiasm for work were enormous. He seemed able to go on and on. Professor Florance felt that many writers have over-emphasised Rutherford's fits of depression, and their effects on his students; he himself had never found them as bad as was made out, but he thought one description of Rutherford was perhaps not far wrong: when he enters the laboratory it is like the rising of the sun, but sometimes it is like the rising of a black thunder cloud. Professor Florence favoured the title of one of the biographies of the great scientist as an over-all picture of the man—"Man of Power."
The showing of the professor's own slides throughout the course of the address added great interest, and the supper afterwards, in preparing which Miss Jane Florence gave noble assistance, finalised a most enjoyable evening.
The next meeting, and last for this year, is on Aug. 10, when Mr. S. R. Searle asks "What is Probability?"
On Friday, and Saturday last, the VUC Drama Club presented in the Little Theatre, their one act play evening. "Give The Audience A Chance" was first on the bill. It was a pleasant little diversion, ridiculing the petit-bourgeois at the theatre but fortunately it was not prolonged to any great length (or I feel that university sophistication would have found it boring, extremely quickly. "Man In The Bowler Hat" by A. A. Milne and "If Men Played Cards As, Women Do" by George S. Kaufman were much in the same strain. The play by Milne was the better of the two; in a light frivolous way at amused the audience but all were, I believe, a little piqued by the trick played upon us at the end. "If Men Played Cards as Women Do" was, like the other plays, competently acted, but suffered, from the defect of being simply a lampoon on one topic, and once a fair measure of fun had been poked at the object of derision the danger of tedium again became apparent. It would be impossible to mention all by name who pleased by their stage graces and invidious to specify any in particular, though the part played by Henry Connor should not be lost sight of, in the Milne play.
For aesthetic carnivora "The Respectful Prostitute" by Jean Paul Sartre provided the intellectual meat of the evening. Lizzie, a young woman engaged in carnal commerce, has fled from New York to what is presumably the Deep South, and while she is innocently sitting in the train, she witnesses a drunken white murder a Negro. As one might expect, the felon is by blood, a member of the upper crust, "a natural leader of men" training in a military academy, and of course highly esteemed in the locality. To make sure that she will testify in the interest of the oligarch family, she is visited by Fred, a cousin of the murderer, ostensibly for a business relation. After a sordid night, with avid protestations of affections, and other things, Fred speedily discloses his real purpose for visiting her. Besides underpaying her Fred offends her bitterly and fails to make her compliant in the matter of her testimony concerning the killing. The police, in league with the oligarchs also fail to break her will by intimidation, but Fred's father, a Senator with a woolly white beard, looking like a Sunday School God gone to Hollywood, appears. He succeeds where others have failed, by pitching a sentimental yarn, about how sorry the guilty man's mother is Being really very sentimental, the young ten dollar whore falls for the soft-soap and signs the incriminating testimony, which has been fabricated by the Czardom of wealth and respectability. After some passage of crude violence, the realisation of her mistake dawns. Lizzie helps another Negro unjustly accused as much as she can, and in the end she is offered the position of Fred's kept woman in a "nice place" on the hill." Fred assures her that he will visit her at least three times a week and I am not at all sure that Fred's father is not averse to meeting her on the same terms.
It must be admitted, by even the vaguely well-intentioned American citizen, that the race question in that country is a very serious one. It is not enough simply to tell a story about what a shame it all is, without at least stating some kind of solution. Even Hollywood recognises the problem exists and has brought out a couple of films recently; of course, thoroughly muddled and confused so that wicked agitators cannot make political capital out of it. If we are going to have an awakening of social conscience then the film industry will ride the bandwagon too and moralise till further orders, if it will pay. The same mercantile calculation does not apply in the case of Sartre, but the same confusion rolgns in his play. The leading characters are very "mixed up" with a suggestion of subtle neurotic disorders, lurking around, though hard to pin down. This is particularly the case with Fred who wants desperately to be assured by the wanton that she loves him; the Negro also is so much over-awed by the white man's mana that he won't even try to defend himself.
The leading parts taken by Gwenneth Carr, Anthony Kcesing, Roy Melford were well done although voices did not carry very clearly to the back of the hall. Although the play had some defects the VUC Drama Club are to be congratulated on picking upon a playwright Vot well known In New Zealand, yet having something to say.
The VUC Fencing1 Club was the host for
The Men's Senior Foil Pool brought good fencing from the men who will probably represent Varsity at Tournament—Hampton, Bennett. Stevens. Michael and possibly Flaws. Club captain Hampton was down 4-1 in one fight and came up to win 4-5. Fane Flaws (Bub) walked in on Sunday for Sabre and walked off with the title. He fought at the Empire Games. Brother Eric was second, and won the Epee contest.
The boys from Wellington College showed definite promise. Some are coming to VUC and will "be a big asset. Their fighting ability is a tribute to the teaching of Eric Flaws and Ray Michael—the latter, by the way, won the Men's senior foil title.
Jill Burrell, runner-up to Julie Flocton In Women's senior foil pool, has only been fighting two months, and her place, and Prue Lusk's who was third, was due to determined attacks in her own inimitable style. Jill and Sue hope to go to Otago next year—someone please warn them down there.
The Tournament was a good show: the corner Judging was of the usual standard, which could be improved.
Women's Senior Foll.—Julie Flocton, VUC; Jill Barrell, VUC; Prue Lusk, VUC.
Men's Junior Foll.—Ray Michael. VUC; Sid Holland, HVSC; A. R. P. Cooper. WCSC.
Woman's Senior Foll.—Elizabeth Pierce, WSC; Tetu Tcnekature, VUC; Julie Burrell, VUC
Men's Senior Foll.—Walter Stafford, Peter Hampton; Win Stevens; Ian Bennett.
Epee.—Eric Flaws, VUC; Walter Stafford, WSC; Brian Cato, NSC.
Sabre.—Fane Flaws, Eric Flaws, Brian Cato. Wyn Stevens.
Published for the Victoria University Students Association and printed by the Standard" Press 25a Marion St. Wellington.