WAR TROPHIES

Southland Times, Issue 20618, 17 October 1928, Page 3

WAR TROPHIES

DESTRUCTION ADVOCATED. NEW ZEALAND CONTROVERSY . RECALLED. Sydney, September 13. The advocacy in New Zealand some years ago of the destruction of all war trophies which are retained in the cities and towns, is recalled by the statement this week of the Mayor of Perth (Cr. T. J. Franklin). “I certainly think,” he said, “that if war trophies were scrapped it would be better in the interests of those who are working for peace. They are no use and they are not ornamental. They only remind us of the tribulation and sorrow which people had to endure during the war.” The statement has been responsible for a chorus of protests, and it is safe to say that the public of Australia is no more prepared to endorse the suggestion than was the public of New Zealand. In fact, it has been very forcibly stated that were Cr Franklin to put into practice with his own hands the suggestion he has made he would place himself automatically within the range of the law. The Returned Soldiers’ and Sailors’ League has a definite ruling that such trophies are public property, and any one who dared even to upend a rusty, old Gerpian machine gun would be liable to as great a penalty as if he entered the National Art Gallery and ripped the most valuable picture. Some time ago some drunken vandals, with a perverted sense of humour, finished up their evening by desecrating the local war memorial—a» gun—with beer barrels. The Soldiers’ League took a serious view of the matter, and although no action was taken it was shown that a serious crime had been committed. The secretary of the league (Mr. Stagg) said that the returned man would never agree to the destruction of war trophies. In dozens of places trophies, such as captured guns, were integral parts of the local memorial. To be consistent .the memorials would have to go, including the National War Museum. Sir Charles Rosenthall, one of Australia’s generals in the Great War, said that a war trophy was an outward visible sign, not, as had been suggested, as a reminder of war, but as a permanent symbol of sacrifice. People forget, after all, that Germany was not the vanquished. France and poor little Belguim were the vanquished. Mr. O. Beyers of the Limbless Soldiers’ Association, said: “The public does not look on war trophies in any spirit of bombast at having defeated an enemy, but rather in the light of having preserved her national liberty. God knows we limbless men need no reminders, but our children should never be permitted to forget that it was their liberty we fought for. We can forgive, but we cannot forget.” “The Government has no intention of taking such action,” said the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives when asked by Dr. Maloney whether it was intended to adopt the cheap process of obliterating war trophies “by growing ivy over them.”