WELCOMING RETURNED SOLDIERS

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 18 August 1917, Page 5

WELCOMING RETURNED SOLDIERS

■ To the Editor. Sir, —As I am the person who attended the Taihape Patriotic Society’s meeting in the dual capacity of reporter and member of the Committee, it is due to tie public that I make some explanation of the charges laid against me by Mr A. James in Ms letter of the 15th inst. From September last (the month of my arrival in Taihape) until the time of the animal meeting, the public heard little & the doings of the Taihape Patriotic Society. This body is elected by the public to deal with publicly subscribtd money, and the members of the committee are responsible to the public for actions. Such being the case, the public require to know the business being transacted. For months past, prior to the annual meeting, the public did not know what was being done, and few knew who were the committee and what business was being transacted. The result was that the public took no interest in the Society, so that when the annual meeting was called it lapsed for want of a quorum. So much for want of publicity, and an appeal had to be made throughthe press. At the adjourned annual general meeting there was more than sufficient for a quorum and election of committee. I may here state I was asked by Mr James himself to come along ’to the annual meeting, and being interested in anything appertaining to the welfare of soldiers I agreed and was elected on the committee. As the School Committee meets on the same night as the Patriotic Society’s meeting, and the Times could not report both, I was asked by the management, as I would always be there, if I would rejpgrit it. As I am always Avilling to ffve time and labour for patriotic purposes I have supplied the Times with a report of the proceedings for public information. This they had not been receiving for many months bfore. The above will satisfactorily settle the question of the representative acting in the dual capacity. Mr James in his letter of the 15th states “the subject in question was that of a letter received from the Returned Soldiers’ Ball Committee asking for a grant from the Incidental Fund of the Patriotic Society toward the expenses of the ball. Such is not the case. I have seen a copy of the letter sent to the secretary of the Society, and

it reads: “We understand that your Society has in hand a matter of about £3O for the purpose of farewelling and entertaining returned soldiers. We have been instructed by our Committee to apply to you for a grant from the above fund, as all returned soldiers' will be the guests of the Committee at our forthcoming ball.” It will be seen there is a decided variance between these two statements. The Returned Soldiers’ Committee

did not ask for a grant to help pay

the expenses of the ball, but for a to help in entertaining t-heir guests—the returned soldiers. Mr. James in his letter also stated that Mr Munro said “the Taihape Patriotic Committee had nothing to be proud of In connection with its treatment Of returned men.” On perusal of the report in the Times of the 14th it will be seen that I stated at the meeting “the Patriotic Committee had neglected the ‘welcoming home’ of returned soldiers, and apart from the meeting of the soldiers at the station by one or two representatives of the Patriotic Committee nothing had been done in the matter of welcoming wounded and invalided soldiers back to Taihape, and in my opinion in this connection the Patriotic Committee had nothing to b eproud of.” In both cases I believe I have been unintentionally misquoted, but in a way that alters the whole aspect of the question under debate. Mr James accuses me of making a one-sided report, but I have the opinion of a member of the executive that the report was absolutely fair. Mr James proves so himself. only I stated in the sentence “it was stated by a member of the Executive Committee that this money (tn-

cidental Fund) was being used to purchase stationery, etc., and this xe*<Jfcced the drain on the Wounded Soljßers’ Fund” —what Mr James stated in detail. The question involved was whether the Patriotic Society would take advantage of the presence of the

returned soldiers of the district at the bail and welcome them back, not only by words, but by a grant to assist in their entertainment. The Returned Soldiers’ Ball Committee recognised such a grant was a fair thing, and requested that, it be paid out of the fund collected from the public at send-offs at the Town Hall. The executive Committee met this with a curt refusal, and submitted the report to the General Committee to be adopted. I, amongst ethers, considered the sentiment, compliment, and honour to returned soldiers greater than the retention of £lO in the Incidental Fund, and considered the ball a fitting occasion on which to officially welcome home and honour them, and officially bear a sharq of the cost. Of the ten non-committee members present seven voted in favour of the grant. The principle involved was a bigger one than perhaps appeared to the Committee, and the publication of the division list Has been approved of by the public. One gentleman, in appreciation, handed £1 to the Ball Committee. It may appear to he much ado about nothing, but I am certain good will result. There is no personal feeling in the matter, several of my best friends are on the other side, Mr James included. —I am, etc, 1 W. J. MUNRO.

(A letter from Mr J. F. Thurston on the same subject is unavoidably crowded out of this issue, but it will appear on Monday.—Ed.)