WAR MEMORIAL.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18443, 29 March 1922, Page 6

WAR MEMORIAL.

DISCUSSED BY BOROUGH COUNCIL.

MATTER SHELVED FOR THREE

MONTHS.

Tne question of the war memorial sit© came before the Borough Council last evening, when there was a deputation present irom the Central Var Memorial Committee. On behalf of the Central War Memorial Committee. Mr W. G. Bassett the Council lor authority to erect a monument in Queen’s Park. Mr Bassett traversed the history of liis committee and referred to the result of the plebiscite, tie claimed that it was a clear cut direction from the people in regard to a site. It was the clearly expressed wish of the public. It was not intended to put up a tombstone. They intended to canvass for money and then invite the architects of New Zealand to submit a design. On the Mayor’s motion the matter was referred to the Queen’s Park Domain Board.

With that aspect dealt with Cr. Oakley Browne moved in accordance with notice of motion :

“That the resolution agreeing to guarantaee to the War Memorial Committee a contribution equal to 2s per capita on the basis of population and agreeing to the committee s various recommendations in regard to the erection of a war memorial on Durie Hill, be rescinded.”

Cr. Oakley Browne sidd he was opposed to an arbitrary rate or anything compulsory about a war memorial. They had reached an unseemly position. It was a pity that there was a squabble over the war memorial site. 67 per cent, of the people voted at the plebiscite for a central site. The best thing would lie for both committees to resign and leave the matter for a year or two years, so that a new committee could spring up and take over the work. They should erect something that would be useful to the town and the people to come after them. Cr. Gohns considered that the will of the people should be given* effect to. The Council did not call for the plebiscite, but gave the Central Committee an opportunity to take one. So far the Central Committee had not put a definite scheme before them. Cr. Gohns moved as an amendment: “That the resolution be considered this day three months, and that the Central War Memorial Committee be requested to supply the Council within the next three months with (1) the nature of the memorial to be erected; (2) have ‘hey the required amount of finance to erect the memorial; (3) the time within which the memorial can be erected, and that the War Memorial Committee lie advised that the Council are considering a notice of motion to rescind the resolution passed by the Council on September, 13, 1921, agreeing to guarantee to the War Memorial Committee a contribution equal to. 2s per capita on the basis of the population.. and that their proposed memorial he not gone on with until the Council has decided the question now before it.”

Cr. Gohns said that it would have the effect of spurring on the Central Committee and put them on their mettle. It would also help them to raise the necessary funds if they are to be raised. The Council would then have the necessary data and be assured that the memorial would bo a worthy one. Cr. Burgess seconded the amendment.

Cr. Luxford opposed the motion because The Council should not draw but of the arrangements with the other local bodies without consulting them. The result of the first meeting called was that delegates were properly appointed and they decided upon a certain course of action. The other local bodies had the right to be consulted so as to come to an agreement if possible. Owing to the result of the plebiscite the Central Committee should be given a free hand. They should not be called on to report to the Council. They had guaranteed the responsibility of finance, and had promised a worthy memorial. Cr. C. P. Brown supported the amendment as its main object was to have something definite before rescinding the resolution. He treated the result of the plebiscite as a negative vote as there would be a majority against any site.

Cr. Oakley Browne said the Council was only asking the ratepayers to contribute,* whereas most of the population were not ratepayers. It was childish to pay that the result of the plebiscite was not an expression of public opinion. He did not like compulsory contribution. It should be spontaneous, but there wbuld never be spontaneity while they were bickering. Personally he intended to resign from the Central Committee. They should let the matter die until the people cooled down and would be reasonable. Cr. Halligan said it was only fair for the Council to give the Central Committee permission to erect a worthy memorial by voluntary subscription. There were people in Wanganui trying to kill the Central Committee. If the Durie Hill Committee wanted to erect a memorial they should also allow them. He had noticed in Timaru that the people there were erecting a memorial in the middle of the street.

Cr. Sharpe said that the Council was behind the Central Committee in going for a plebiscite and the result was an overwhelming majority for the central site. Everybody in Wanganui could have voted and if did not it was their own fault. The amendment would only put off the evil day. It was a fair offer to ask for a site and offer to do ihe work.

The Mayor said he considered if the Durie Hill Committee went on the Council could not refuse to pay the money which they had legally refused to do* He had a strong feeling on the matter, but he wanted to see the best. He did not see that they could get out of it even by resolution. Cr. Oakley Browne asked if it was stated that as the result of the plebiscite they would all come in and help with one site. The Mayor said he had never said that. It was deplorable that there should be a squabble. The amendment was carried, those opposing it being Crs. Browne, Luxford, Halligan and Sharpe.