ANZAC PAT OBSERVANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22504, 23 February 1935, Page 11

ANZAC PAT OBSERVANCE

• ' ' TO THE EDITOB

Sir, —On can sympathise with Mr M'Dowall on his reluctance to express his • vie we,-on theobseVvsnce of Anzac Day and more whole-heartedly on the confusion o£r, mind that these views betoken. Mr M'Dowall’a criticism embraces several points—(l) the-choice of day, (2) the manner of its celebration, (3)'a comparison of that celebration with that of Easter , Friday, v ■ • ■ •As tb.-thc first, the observance, of Anzac Day has been made the subject of an enactment by Parliament—namely, the Anzac Day Act, 1920, amended by the Act of 1921-22, which provides: that “in commemoration of the part taken by New Zealand troops in the Great War and in memory of those who gave their lives for the Empire, the 25th of April in each year (being the anniversary of the first landing of/.Enjglish, Australian, and. New .Zealand troops on Gallipoli) shall be-known, as Anzac, Day, and shall be observed throughout New Zealand in all-respects as if Anzac Day were a Sunday." -If Mr M'Dowall wishes the day changed, then "he will have to. set about obtaining a repeal of the -present enactment. iln order properly to commemorate the efforts during the war -of New Zealand men and women, it is entirely unnecessary to glorify war, nor is it likely that ex-, servicemen who bore the brunt of the last war would do so. In speaking of our national effort, there is no need to apologise for it. There is-less need to boast aboutit. A bare recital .is-sufficient.. -The facts speak for themselves. In New Zealand at no other time nor ,in any other field has such a. whole-hearted , and united effort been made, and those of the on-coming generation who have of their own experience no knowledge of those events have a right to know something of them, and to know them from the mouths of those who played their part in them. In telling that story the fact could not be concealed (if anyone was foolish enough to try) that the effort of . our own country, great as it was, was anything but a part of that great concerted effort by every component,.part of the British Empire. To say or imply that our commemoration must involve a comparison to the detriment of other branches of the forces or of the civil arm is quite untrue. Through that united effort our country was neither invaded nor occupied, in consequence of which there is little tangible evidence before the rising generation-that a desperate war ever took place. Of that generation some are now parents, and from them their children are. likely to know less of what is to themselves a dim memory or an old story. There are exservice ’men who believe that at appropriate times these young people should know something of the sacrifice made on their behalf and by what means their country was preserved for »them intact. Mr ‘ M'Dowall would have ns stand in silence with heads uncovered and bowed. But Mr M'Dowall has said too much. He asks the interference of the Returned Soldiers’ Association as to how citizens should perform their religious, obligations. The Returned Soldiers’ Association as an organisation, in the performance of its proper functions, has, with the support of the. people generally, been entirely successful.. If, on the other hand, Mr M'Dowall has in the pursuit of his own objects failed, he has no right to make a. comparison between two occasions approximate in date but entirely separate and distinct. The one is national, the other is religious.. \ If, in-conformity with its policy, the Returned Soldiers' Association has been successful in making Anzac Day a day of solemn commemoration, no one, least of all v Mr M'Dowall, has the right to change it because be and others are unsuccessful in achieving a similar result on Easter Friday.—l am, etc., February 22. 3/389.