WAR MEMORIAL.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20257, 8 June 1931, Page 10

WAR MEMORIAL.

the end of a CHAPTER. TO TUB EDITOR Off THE I'BESS. gir,—ln my view the Bridge of Remembrance is a monument to all those who went to the war. The Column was intended to be a. sacred memorial for those who did not return. I have read the public statements of Crs. E. H. Andrews, M. E. Lyons, mid others on the matter oi 1 the War Memorial, and will deal with them seriatim, The concern shown by Mr E. 11. Audrews for the distresses of returned soldiers is an unexceptionable; sentiment, in which wc all share, but I am not aware that Mr Andrews has contributed to. the fund, and would suggest that lie gives rein to his charitable impulses from his own resources. If Mr Audrews thinks that the rejection of the scheme will benefit returned soldiers he is mistaken. On the contrary, it will do .them grievous hurt, for it was the desiro of the promoters that a surplus of about £3OOO should bo devoted to their aid. Until the first purpose of tue fund is aervod, I shall resint all encroachments by intruders to the utmost of my power,

As regards Mr Lyons, I would say that he entirely misconceives his duty as a Councillor, and further, that he is wrong in opposing the wishes of a very largo section of tho community unless he can demonstrate that to give effect to those wishes would do injury to the rights or privileges of tho majority '>f the citizens. His opinion as to whether Christchurch should have ono memorial or two should cfirry no weight what ever, or at least no more than as that of ono of thirty-two thousand voters, It seems passing strange to me that while London has probably twenty memorials, Edinburgh two, Auckland two, and Wellington proposes to have three, Christchurch should be rostricted to one. I don't know what relatives Cr. Lyons lost, but taking my own immediate family as one instanco, we lost six fine sons on tho threshold of life, and wc havo put up our share of the monoy to do them honour in their home town, and it seems hard that we should be denied tho right to do so by tho whim of Mr Lyons, for whom I only the other day sent money and motors to help put him where he is. As regards the attitude of some other Councillors, it is merely what one might expect: their minds are so steeped in politics that "they know not what they <Jo." Representative Citizens' Association members having turned us down, the result of an appeal to the City Council is a foregone conclusion. I am prepared to say that no other Council in the British Empire could behave in so churlish a manner, but what could bo expected of a Council that would smother its most precious heritage within a concrete lavatory! Truly in this and other things tlioy make the name of Christchurch a by-word in the land. But to come to the point and close a rather deep intrusion on your space. I refuse to approach, cap in hand, a Council with which I have bo little in common. So far fig lam concerned tha offer to place the War Memorial upon City property is withdrawn. I yield to "force majeure." —Yours, etc., GEORGE GOULD. Christchurch, June Bth, 1931. P.S. —I owe it to the Mayor, Mr Sullivan, to thank him publicly for his kindly attitude throughout these discussions and negotiations, and to express my appreciation of }>is fair and tactful control of the mooting on Thursday night.—G.G.