CASE OF THE C.O.

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 118, 21 May 1928, Page 4

CASE OF THE C.O.

A UNIVERSITY DEBATE The question of conscientious objectors to military training was discussed by, the . Victoria University College Debating Society before an interested audience last Saturday night. The motion—"That .exemption from military training should be granted to all conscientious objectors, irrespective of denominational creed"—ivas moved by Mr. W. S. Rollings, seconded by Mr. W. J. Hall, and opposed by Mr. G-. K. Powles, seconded by Mr. A. X Hurley. The mover stated that the principle of conscientious objection was now well estabI lished, and had been embodied in the statute law of the country, and that the only question was that of the bona fides of the objector. This.last, he maintained, .•Bould notl be decided solely by the test ' ; q£-. membei'ship of a .denomination having a definite anti-war creed': He upheld the . attitude taken by the recent objectors in Auckland, and urged that the only sure way of averting the horrors of another war was for this attitude to become universal not only in the State itself but throughout the world. This could be done only by upholding the liberty of conscience. . ;Against the motion, Mr. Powles argued first that there was no reason why conscien-. tioug objection should "be allowed -rr to relieve a citizen from the duty- of defence of his country, wlieli it was not allowed .to relieve him" from' any; of Ms otlrer duties ot citizenship. Conscience was not an infallible guide, and in this case, the very existence of the State demanded that the duty of defence should be universal. Secondly, he maintained that even if conscientious objection were to be permitted, thel, only sure and practical method for the Magistrate to decide the bona'fides of. the objector's belief was his holding a definite anti-war creed. A number of other members of the society also 'spoke, both for and against the motion, which, upon being put to the vote of the audience, was carried by a fair majority. '. ' • The judge (Mr. W. J. M'Eklowney) gave an interesting and instructive criticism of the debate, and placed the first five speakers in the following order:—Mr. Boilings 1, Mr. Powles.,2, Mr. Hurley 3, Mr. Arndt 4, and Mr. Bannister 5.