WAR OR NOT?

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 November 1938, Page 5

WAR OR NOT?

ISSUES FACING LEAGUE OF NATIONS SHOULD DECISIONS BE ENFORCED. INTERESTING DEBATE HELD LAST NIGHT. “That the League of Nations should enforce its decisions even at the risk of war,” was the subject of a debate held last night between representatives of the W.E.A. and of the Masterton Catholic Club. The affirmative was taken by Messrs E. Esler (leader) and W. I. Wadhams (of the W.E.A.) and the negative by Messrs J. Dwyer (leader) and Green. The judge, Mr J. H. Kemnitz, L.L.M., gave a very effective criticism of individual speakers. He awarded first place to the Catholic Club with 97 marks out of 250, and 161 points to the W.E.A. Mr Dwyer was judged the best speaker with 85 marks. Mrs T. R. Barrer presided. She stated that the night’s programme was an easy and pleasant co-operative effort taking the form of a debate between members of the W.E.A. and the Catholic Club, as guests of the League of Nations Union. She was pleased to see also that there were present representatives of the Rotary Club with their wives and members of the Toe H„ the Legion, Women’s Institute and other bodies. It should be known that the public were always welcome to League of Nations Union functions. The Union, she said, was fortunate in securing Mr Kemnitz as judge of the debate. Mr Kemnitz was a representative of the New Zealand University Students’ Association, and had had considerable university experience in debating, having been also a member of a touring team to the United States. In opening the debate for the affirmative, Mr Esler said that the foursquare principles of right were the .greatest force in the world for peace, born out of the misery and suffering of people. Twice in history, civilisation—that of Macedonia and that of Rome had been wrecked because of intervention from outside. By a succession of steps several countries in turn, Abyssinia, the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia had been surrendered to dictators drunk with power, and these aggressive acts would continue until force was used. Meanwhile, each new territory gave the aggressor more strength and made him harder to stop. It was better to perish fighting for something worth while than to be over-ridden by bullies. Mr Dwyer said that the League ot Nations had been created from the ideals and dreams of Woodrow Wilson, which today had become a living reality for the purpose of maintaining universal and lasting peace. There were sufficient risks of war today without wrecking an ideal in its cause. The purpose of the League was to prevent war by settling points of law in international courts of justice, and to reduce national armaments.. Mr Green asked if the world had ever benefitted by former wars? Was the League to sacrifice its ideals to back up some other nation in the settlement of its quarrels? The League’s function was an advisory one. Had Greece not been victorious against the Persians, it had been, said, civilisation would have been strangled in its cradle. But had the present world cause to thank or to blame Greece for present day civilisation with its bombs and poison gas? Other democracies had fallen, but the tide of progress had flowed on. . Replying Mr Dwyer claimed it was the function of the police not to fight but to maintain law and order. The ideal of the League ought not to be proselytized. Peace at any price! At the price of wading knee deep in blood, not for peace, but for the destruction of peace? Life was more important than any piece of property. War makers sought to make life as cheap as dirt. Mr Esler, in reply, said that it was necessary not to dream of ideals but to face grim realities. What was to be done to prevent the brutal acts of dictators except a resort to force? Aims would be used only in case of emergency, but that emergency must be prepared for and faced when it arose. Would his opponent walk up to Mussolini and say “Stop!” And would Mussolini take any notice of him if he did? The only effective way to back up the decisions of the League was by a solid and united front. Mrs Paterson recited very effectively Ingersoll’s Reflections at the Tomb of Napoleon. Miss O. lorns moved a vote of thanks to Mrs Paterson and Miss Barrer presented her with a posy. On the motion of Mr J. Robertson. M.P., a vote of thanks was passed to the debaters and to the judge. Votes of thanks were also passed to Mrs Barrer and the League of Nations Union by representatives of the Catholic Club and the W.E.A. Supper was served by the members of the League of Nations Union.