Random Shots

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 191, 12 August 1911, Page 15

Random Shots

/ U BY ’SAMIIED?

gome write a neighbour's name to lash, gome write—vain thought—for needful cash. Some write to please the country clash, Anil raise n din. For me, an aim I never fash— I write for fuu.

I am aware that some of my readers don't sympathize with me about military training, but I have been deterred from discussing the question very seriously or at great length, because, generally Bpeaking, it isn't well suited for treatment by a relatively trivial and irresponsible personality likn Zamiel. Therefore, I must thank my an'ti-militarist friends heartily for giving me at last a fair excuse for regarding the matter in a humorous light. This much I am certain of, that I have not for many a long day come across so delightful a specimen of unconscious humour as is contained in the published reports of the meeting called the other night at the Federal Hall by the Auckland Anti-Militarist Council. The speakers all condemned the Defence Act, which was described as an unjustifiable interference with the liberty of the people, "for which their fathers had in the past fought and sacrificed themselves and died"; and it is this last aentence that I have been turning over rapturously in my mind even since I first came across it.

±i±*±i±±*± I ask you, gentle reader, to reflect deeply upon the superlatively delightful ihumour of this statement. Remember, the speaker is denouncing war, he is inveighing against the proposal to give our young men military training, and he has Just declared that the Defence Act, ■which proposes to do this, is "an abominable infringement of the rights of the people." And what does he appeal to in order to justify his arguments? To the sacred name of Liberty, "for which our fathers in the past have fought and sacrificed themselves and died"! (Excuse the repetition, but it is too good to say only once.) I gather that the linti-Militarist Society approved of these 6entiments because it applauded them, and didn't contradict them. Now, -what are we to make of this sort of logic? The anti-militarists object to the Defence Act because it infringes their ;liberty. And how do they tell us were these liberties secured for them? By the blood of their ancestors, who fought and died for them. It seems to me that if Überty was gained for us only by fighting and 'bloodshed, that is a remarkably good reason for keeping up war. •But it is surely the worst of all reasons for objecting to military training. Does an anti-militarist believe that his liberties will never be threatened again? And if they are threatened, how is he going to keep them, or pass them on to his children just as our fathers handed' them down to tis, unless he is prepared to fight for them? And how is he going to fight unless he is trained? But why should I go further? I can only thank the antiimilitarists once more for the moment of genuine enjoyment in which I first grasped the full meaning of *±heir delightfully humorous logic, and for their generosity in supplying the advocates of the Defence Bill with the best of all possible arguments in favour of military training.

±±±±±i±±±* It is .not often that I venture to come into contact with the august officials who preside over the Education Department, but this week I have a reasonable excuse. I am not sure that the School Journal is not always an excuse for a little free criticism of the Department; but I won't indulge in generalities. In iVolume V. No. 7, issued in August, 1911, on page 105, I find an article headed. "Dunedin, the City of the South," and in the introductory paragraph there is included the following mysterious sentence: "You have heard of the growth of the* more northerly cities—Russell, Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch •—the beginnings of Dunedin were much the same." The first thing that struck me was that, however Dunedin began, it certainly did not start in the same way as Christchurch or Auckland or Wellington; and to tell children that sort of thing is only to mislead them. But just when I had got this far in my ruminations, I realised that I was staring at a strange name—Russell; where had I heard that name before? Where on earth, I said devoutly to myself, is there a "northerly city" named Russell?

4*4444**44 For the moment I wondered if my education had been neglected, and if there ' really was a. big city in the North Island that I knew nothing about. Possibly in the Taupo district or in the unexplored xecesses of Tuhoe Land, or in that dim "roadless North" over which so maoy lamentations have been poured out—perhaps there a careful search may find concealed that great "northerly city" named Russell, which is big enough and important enough to put in the same sentence and on the same footing as Auckland and Christchurch and Wellington. And then all in a moment, I recollected —there is a village called Russell on the Bay of Islands. Many years ago this picturesque little settlement was the centre of European occupation in the North—in fact, in 1840 the Union Jack was hoisted there, and in 1844 Heke caused an interesting little war by cutting it down. And when I came to consider these things, the true inwardness of the situation burst upon me. In the "Official Year Book" of the Dominion there is at the end a short abstract of principal events in our history, and among them are chronicled the facts I have mentioned about Russell. Well, you see. the literary person in charge of the "School Journal" has evidently looked up the "Official Year Book" and found these interesting facts about the founding of Russell 70 years ago. Looking further he finds no reference to the subsequent disappearance of Kussill through fire, flood, or earthquake, and, therefore, he comes to the natural conclusion that Russell, being older than Auckland, has grown at least as fast as Auckland, and is now a "northerly city," a worthy rival of the "last, loneliest, loveliest itself. I trust that the Edueatiun Department will appreciate my humble attempt to explain how Russell has coma to be regarded in Wellington as a nty. But, between ourselves, what do you think of the "School Journal" now!