WAR MEMORIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18352, 9 March 1920, Page 7

WAR MEMORIAL.

r A HALL OF MEMOEIE3DECISION OF INFLUENTIAL IdEETING. CENOTAPH AND BRIDGE REJECTED. 'A meeting of citizens convened by the At ay or was held last night in the City Council Chamber to receive the report of the War Memorial Committee, and to consider a motion by a member of tha committee that a Bridge of Remembrance should be coupled with the proposed cenotaph. There was an attendance of about three hundred persons, presided over by the Mayor (Dr Thaoker, M.P.). HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT. The Mayor expressed his delight at such a large meeting, which, ho said, did justice to the city and was another instance of the need for a Town Hall. (Applause.) He read letters from Mr A. Bidgood, offering to give the proceeds of next Sunday evening’ 3 concert for a war memorial, and from the Hon John Topi, offering as a free gift granite from Ituapuki Island for a cenotaph. Both offers were received with applause. The Mayor went on to say that the memorial movement had been subjooted to sidetrackings of every kind, hut he wished to make known what had happened since took office on May i, 1919. The first meeting, on August 11, 1919, representative of town and country, affirmed the necessity for a war memorial, and set up a sub-committee, and at a subsequent meeting in August it was decided to erect a memorial and invito the country to join in. It was also resolved that the cost of the memorial should be met by a loan to be provided by all the local bodies joining in. The Mayor read the records of the various meetings, coming down with various interruptions over Christmas until the meetings of February 9 and February 25, at whioh, he said, it was decided that a efenotaph should bo erected in Cathedral Square and’ that the City Council should bo asked to raise £25,000 for the purpose. The City Council had replied that some site other than Cathadral Square should be selected, and had expressed the opinion that the amount required for the memorial should be raised by voluntary subscription. (Applause.) The proceedings had hot been the muddle and the uungle that the Press had tried to make out. The cause of the trouble was the absence of the public, and he was glad that at last there was an adequate attendance.

A VICTORY TOWN HALL. r Continuing, the Mayor said that When the soldiers decided to build a club they were asked unanimously by the newspapers to allow the hall of memories to stand over, and the position of the Returned Soldiers’ Association was that while they wanted a hall of memories, they would support anything signifying a hall of memories. If that were erected, they would then put their whole strength into assisting the city to build a Victory Town Hall. That, however, would be quite apart from a memorial, and after a memorial had been erected. The soldiers hod promised to stand down in the matter of a hall of memories, and this may have led to the belief that th® committee Was not moving forward.

| DISCUSSION ON PROCEDURE, r The Mayor suggested that the meeting should first affirm the necessity of a cenotaph, and thon pass on to the question of n bridge. The matter of finance, ho said, had been decided by the anplause that had greeted the council’s decision, and th© only matters for decision were the form of the memorial and the Bite. If the money was m>t forthcoming an organiser was ready to enter upon the work. He hoped, however, that conscription would never bo thought of, and he believed that a memorial second to none in the Dominion, could be raised by voluntary subscriptions. The .principle of raising money by rate, however, had been affirmed by the Government in deciding that £IOO,OOO should be raised for a, national memorial. The present meeting should first decide whether a cenotaph should bo erected. Mr H. J. Ranger said that the Mayor |vas out of order. At the last meeting he had promised that three issues would bo put to the citizens, and he should pot attempt to get an affirmation of any particular form of memorial. If he had a motion he should submit it. (Hear, hear).Air G. F. Whitesides asked whether the meeting was a general committee ineeting. “Yes” said the Mayor, Mr Whitesides: It cannot be both a committee meeting and a publio meeting of citizens. The Mayor: That ig how it has been called all the time. Air Whitesides: If it is a committee

bieeting I am a trespasser. The Mayor: No, you are not. The bommittee had power to add to its Humber*.

v Mj. H- S. 33- Hobday said that as a Member of the committee he understood that a motion had been earned for an architectural memorial decorated with statuary. He wanted to know ,what had become of it. Tho Mayor: The cenotaph is supposed to be a cenotaph with art statuary, and we have got to give it a distinct and decided name. I ha ve here to-night a design that falls in with what Colonel Hobday has been talking about. ■ Mr H. Thompson asked whether, in the event of Mr Irwin’s motion being defeated, other motions, would bo accepted to rescind the cenotaph. “Yes” said the Mayoj;. Mr A. L. Gee submitted that the cenotaph proposal fell to the ground since the council had refused to grant Cathedral Square, and new motions should he accepted. ■ Mr H. W. Palmer insisted that the * ineeting, according to the advertisement, had nothing whatever to do with the Committee. The Mayor said that the first public Meeting formed itself into a committee, and he took it that each succeeding public meeting became part of the general committee- ' Mr Palmer replied that no motion should have precedence in a meeting of citizens. The Mayor said that other motions Would be accepted.

BRIDGE AND CENOTAPH PROPOSED. Mr J- Win Irwin moved:— That a bridge of remembrance be coupled with a cenotaph as a war memorial. He said that a bridge was the only Memorial that would satisfy all the conditions pertaining to a war memorial. Jt had been said that the earlv troops did not pass over the Cashel Street Bridge, but they had done so earlier as {Territorials or Cadets.

Cries of “ No. not necessarily.” Mr Irwin said that the bridge would pot cost more than £IO,OOO. There was Nothing utilitarian in its symbolism. Mi William Kerr seconded the motion. A BRIDGE PROPOSED. Mr H. J. Ranger moved as an amondJnent That the bridge of romombranco over the Avon at Cashel Street be the war memorial for Christchurch. He said that Christchurch had an opportunity >to erect a unique memorial, end no argument had been advanced against the sacred site at Cashel Street. Mr A. L. Gee seconded the amendfneni, stating that the objection that *ll tU men did not pass over tho bridge

was not valid, as vary few had not passed over it. Voices: The Alain Body. Mr Gee said that the Main 80% were nearly all old Volunteers or Oadets who walked over the bridge. Mr W. E. Leadley: They walked) through Cathedral Square too.

' “ CLEAR BOARD ” REQUESTED. Mr 0. T. J. Alpers, in giving notice of a further amendment, said that the returned soldiers present, whom ho represented, wanted a clear board, with the opportunity to put motions do novo. The Alayor said that the resolution regarding a cenotaph ought to be rescinded, but _ to save time he would taka Air Irwin’s amendment as a motion.

Mr J. 33. Petheriok said that as tha mover or the motion in favour of a cenotaph, ho questioned whether more than one amendment could bo taken at a time.

Air H. B.- Sorensen stated that if the meeting could not settle on a memorial it should give the matter up. He favoured a bridge.

Mr K. Thompson suggested that the Alayor should take a vote either to affirm or reject tho committee’s decision in favour of a oonotaoh.

Tho Alayor then put Air Ranger’s amendment, which was declared carried ou tho voices, and on a show of hands it was'carried, evidently by two to one. HALL OF ACEAIORIES AGREED TO. Mr Alpers then moved:— That the memorial to soldiers of Canterbury who have fallen take the form of a nail of memories. Air Alpers said that there was a distinct promise made to the soldiers through the papers that if tlioy would) withdraw their plea for a hall of memories, the publio would support some scheme dear to tho soldiers’ hearts, for a memorial afterwards. Of all schemes put before the publio, this was the one that had priority. In 1917 the executive of the Returned Soldiers’ Association decided, under the inspiration of its then president (th© late Air H. M. Cotton) upon the simple idea of a hall of memories. They had actually obtained plans for such a building, and had stood down in favour of other claims. They came now to ask for a fair field and a hearing for their proposal, although if it was rejected thoy would work for whatever other memorial was decided on. Tho hall of_memories, as Padr© Fraer had suggested rightly, should be Byzantine in design, Binoe New Zealand had found her nationhood in Egypt, Gallipoli and Talestino, in a fight of Cross against Crescent. He claimed that the soldiers had priority to consideration, for it was “ the boys who did it.” A Citizen: What about tho parents who lost boys? • Mr Alpers Baid that tho majority of parents would ray that what was good enough for their boys’ comrades would bo good enough for them. For his own part, he favoured any memorial rather than ono in Cathedral Square, but an insuperable objection to the bridge was the Main Body and tho First and Second Reinforcements did not pass over it. He suggested that the meeting should discharge every pledge or preconceived notion, and approach the matter with an open mind. As for a hall of memories, Mr Charles Clark had suggested aa a e ate the lawn inside the Domain, immediately south of the Museum.

Mr A. W. Jamieson, in seconding Mr Alpers’s amendment, said that the majority of soldiers favoured a hall of memories. Air Gladstone Soil said that if the memorial was to be ereotod to soldiers, the meeting should, defer to the opinions of the soldiers. It would cast a stigma on Christchuroh to torn down tho ideas of the returned men.

COAIPROAHSE SUGGESTED. The Mayor suggested that a compromise might be arrived at, as both a bridge and a hall of memories could be erected. If deoided on, the city would see them through. * Air A. F- Carey said that many of the fathers of boys who had fallen, acting in conjunction with the R.S.A., had been direly disappointed when they found in canvassing for subscriptions, that the citizens would not support a hall of memories'expect as a city scheme and not a soldiers scheme. He referred to tho opinions of the returned men on the subject, and waß glad that an opportunity offered tq carry them out.

Mr W. E. Leadloy said that the association had come unanimously to the decision that a hall of memories was the desire of the returned men, and ho believed, of the parents of fallen men. Parents of Main Body men had protested to him against a bridge because their sons did not pass over it. He was a Mam Body man, blit never handled a rifle before he went away, and there were thousands like him for whom a bridge had no appealThe Rev W. Johnston in supporting a hall of memories said that he wanted a place where he could go and take off his hat, and he did not like the utilitarian idea of a bridge. Mr Ricketts said that as a returned soldier, he was ashamed to attend a public meeting to advocate a memorial, and he felt he was out of place. He had seon reoorts of intermittent discussions for eight or nine months, and nothing had been done, and he asked the meeting not to adopt a bridge, which waa by no means sacred, but to decide on a hall of memories to which parents could go on their sacred anniversaries. Mr N- B. M’Callum said that many soldiers and relatives of fallen men wero absent because they could not face such a meeting, but he could assure the meeting, as president of the Returned Soldiers' Association, that the soldiers favoured a non-utilitarian structure sacred to the memory of the bov3 who went down by their side. Mr H. S. E. Hobday said that the desire of the committee had been to give effect to the desire of the soldiers for a hall of memories and it might be well to call for designs.

THE DECISION COME TO. On putting Mr Alpers’ motion in favour of a hall of memories, the Mayor declared in favour of the “Ayes.” This was challenged by Mr Ranger, but on a show of hands Sir Alpers’ motion was carried by a largo majority. Mr H. W. Palmer then moved a furtheiyjamcndment in favour of a column surmounted by a figure of victorv, with statuary and bronze lions at the base. This, ho said, might become a. provincial memorial.

The Mayor assured Mr Palmer that the memorial ho had mentioned might very well bo the national memorial. The amendment was not seconded, and Mr Alpers’ amendment was formally carried as the substantive motion.