SHELLING OF ALMERIA

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 158, 5 June 1937, Page 11

SHELLING OF ALMERIA

MEETING OF PROTEST. CONDEMNATORY RESOLUTION. A divergence ol opinion was apparent at a public meeting held last evening by the Palmerston North branch of the League of Nations Union to protest against the shelling of Almeira, in Spain, by the Germans, as to what should he the style of the motion passed signifying the .opinion of the meeting. One motion was proposed by the chairman, Rev. J. Hubbard, who is president of the Palmerston North branch of the union, but an amendment in considerably stronger terms was then brought forward and on being put to the .meeting, was carried by a large majority. There were between twenty and thirty persons present. At the outset the chairman explained that the meeting had been called by the Palmerston North branch of the union and it had been felt that what should go out from it should bo in | keeping with the principles of the League of Nations —conciliation and arbitration, rather than being rash and ill-considered statements.. In his opinion, as president of the branch, the meeting should first express sympathy with Germany in the loss of some of her nationals on the warship Deutschland, with Spain ill the deaths of innocent people, and then protest a’gainst the shelling of . the beautiful town of Almeira. All kinds of wild stories were about as to why the Germans made such an unworthy and unethical attack on the town. It was a blot on our civilisation. The chairman then placed the following motion before the. meeting: “That this meeting of citizens of 1 almerston North, while expressing deep sympathy with the relatives of German sailors killed in the Deutschland, and with the Spanish Government and people in the reprisals involving the loss of many peaceful citizens and the destruction of a section of a beautiful town, condemns the attack on Almeria, and urges all citizens in the Dominion to unite actively with the League of Nations Union as a way o promoting public opinion in favour ol settlements by arbitration as opposed to reprisals by killing innocent people.”' SPIRIT OF ARBITRATION. .

Mr AY. B. Tennent said it was very difficult to form any definite opinion, but all had been shocked by the dastardly shelling of the city, lliere had been as much sens'd in that action as in the action of one who, wishing revenge for the loss of flowers in his own garden, by the actions of another, went down to the Esplanade and destroyed flowers there. In former times the doctrine had held S'vay ol “an eye for an eye and a tooth lor a •tooth.” That was now superseded m the minds of many by the spirit q arbitration. By the latest news it appeared that the bombing of the warship had been a mistake. J nat made the precipitate shelling of the citv all the worse. As a member ol a Christian community lie was pleased to associate himself with such a motion as that before the meeting, which he seconded. Mr J. J. Stevenson said the same result as had been attained could have been reached by arbitration, with an indemnity. It was to be hoped there would be no recurrence of the matter. Germany said the incident was closed, and it was to he hoped it was. Dr W. M. Smith said lie telt restricted by the motion, but he had felt that in times like these there was imposed on every citizen a task ol criticism. It was that defeatist attitude which allowed such things to go on, when leaders would not make a stand. It appeared that many human beings were battled by the many views put forward, but tlieie were principles which stood above statements and which had to be o >- served if the world was to be saved from moral bankruptcy. When the civil war in Spain had started the League of Nations had already been badly “let down,” but the intervention in Spain had been such a tissue of expediencies that there was ver.\ little left of the fabric of international law. Even Britain had broken international law in not preventing three detachments organised by General O’Duffv leaving Liverpool for Spain. The attack on Almeria was just such an outrage as could be expected from the type of Government holding sway in Berlin. He added his humble protest against the outrage. . \\’e should condemn murder of any kind, said Mr S. J. Bennett. It a person was murdered in Auckland lie would protest against that man s friends taking reprisals in Palmerston North. The shelling had been done hundreds of miles away from where the Deutschland had been bombed Almeria had taken refugees who had dragged themselves there. Now they had been driven forth again. Madrid Barcelona and Valencia had all been so strong that they might have hurt the attacking German snip; so Almeria had been shelled—a lesser town just within the ■ Government lines. Hitler and / Mussolini had continually bluffed the democratic Powers and the League of Nations had never taken a stand. We had vet to find a democratic Government which would act against such murder. The German reasons given were definitely of a lying type. Me knew that hundreds ot individuals weie being murdered in Spain and also m Germany. Statesmen should, take a stand. To remain silent condoned the offence and made even more certain that there would be a anal war. The less we did, the more we could eX »Ir Ct F. J. Lewin extended thanks to the League of Nations Union dor drawin" attention to the terrible position in Spain. He did so particularly oil behalf of the Spanish Med cal Aid Committee. Mr G. Brown moved an amendment: That this meeting records its emphaKrotest against the brutal reprisals of P the German Government in the shelling of Almeria and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Ger "Srtt *>? ,*r“Ke and Mr Maiuleno supported it lime was no international law non it was a matter who used brute force first V °B e that tiie original motion "as "“tercisn iMimis It was necessary to excicise tact If wholesale condemnation was expressed it was logical to be willing to go the next step further and express a willingness to throw all the forces of the Empire against any repetition of the German action. r l he amendment, he thought, would only be irritating. Mr Brown considered that it was disappointing that the original motion did not approach the subject more directlv. The meeting had been asked to use" parliamentary language. I ho position was that there was no international parliament. In the interests of international goodwill the original motion should be supported, said the chairman. He was not wishful that the opinion of the gathering should be exnressed in statements that could bo damaging. Dr.' Smith described the qnginnl motion as “pussv-footing.” He dul not

know if any of tlio audience had travelled in Europe, had been in teaching, academic or journalistic circles there, but he had never seen any people who were more afraid to say what they thought than those in New Zealand. The chairman made reference to the need of any expression of opinion being in keeping with the principles of the League of Nations —conciliation and arbitration—and Mr Brown asked if the meeting was a public one or a meeting of the League of Nations Union. The chairman said the meeting was a public one and Mr Brown then remarked that members of the audience thus had the right to propose motions or amendments.

The amendment was then put and carried by a large majority, Messrs Hubbard, Stevenson, Tennent and Blakemore asking that their votes against it be recorded.