WAR MEMORIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20231, 15 February 1934, Page 5

WAR MEMORIAL.

Criticism by Returned Soldiers. NO PUBLIC TENDERS. Strong protests were made at the quarterly general meeting of the Christchurch Returned Soldiers’ Association last evening against the action of the War Memorial Committee in letting the contract for the erection of the memorial in the Cathedral grounds to a man who is not a returned soldier, without public tenders having first been called. During the discussion, opinions were expressed that there was no necessity for another war memorial in Christchurch, and that the money should have been made available for the assistance of returned men in distressed circumstances. The subject was introduced by Mr H. E. Denton, who proposed the following motion :—"That this quarterly meeting of the Christchurch Returned Soldiers’ Association is greatly alarmed at the report that a contract is to be let for the construction of the new war memorial without public tenders being called, and instructs the executive to take every action in its power to ensure that all those competent to submit tenders are given an opportunity of doing so.” Mr Denton said that between £SOOO and £IO,OOO had been subscribed by the public for a war memorial and Mr George Gould had been appointed trustee of the fund. While many returned men would agree that at this stage another war memorial was not wanted, he had been advised that a contract for the erection of the memorial had been let on a 10 per cent basis. In Christchurch there were several firms and individuals quite

capable of carrying out the work, yet he understood that the contract had been let to a man who had not seen war service. He considered that the work should have been submitted to open tender and that, other things being equal, preference should have been given to returned men. He protested against the letting of the contract in such a way. When public money was subscribed surely the public had a say as to how it was to be expended. The motion was seconded by Mr J. Gibbs. The opinion that it w-as not fair that such a resolution should come from the association was expressed by Mr J. Laurenson. He wished to point out that it was not a contract for a building, but for an artistic work. Therein the objection could not stand. The contractor who had been given the work employed a number of returned men. He considered that the association was getting within very narrow limits when it insisted that only returned men should get a job. On being put to the meeting the motion w r as lost on a show of hands. A large number of those present abstained from voting.