COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 196, 18 August 1913, Page 4

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

It wonlil appear that the zealous •■paiitists" at Home who are so desperately afraid of anything like national military training are still doing their best to defame New Zealand and Australia, and to pour obloquy and contempt upon us for daring to prepare ourselves for the defence of our country in our own way. We have received a communication from the. indefatigable Mr. T. C. Gregory of Bristol, in wjiich he takes strong exception to our comments upon the statements he has circulated to New Zealand's discredit, and he forwards what he. apparently regards as a conclusive piece of evidence in his own favour. In the article -to winch "Mr. Gregory refers we protested strongly against liis assertion that under our Defence Act any boy might be shot for insubordination in time of peace. In defence of his allegation Mr. Gregory now quotes from an interpretation of the Army Act by -Mr. C. It. Ford, a leading Christchurch anti-militarist, which declares that under certain cmiurrnstances certain clauses ot this Act would operate here, and that, youth;-; might be shot under sentence of co_rt-.n-_.Lal for refusing to obey order-. Iv reply we may say that we are not in the habit of regarding anti-militarists, whether they belong to Christchurch or not, as authorities on points of military law. Mr. Gregory can see no force in our reference to the fact that the Christcliurcb "Pre—a" m vain challenged tiie local anU-_flitarists to gel a legal opinion *m this very point and offered to pay their expenses. However, we still think that the. failure of the anti-mili-tarist- to respond to this offer must seem very significant to most unprejudiced people.

As to the Amendiing Act of November, 1912, by which Parliament more specifically defines the .powers of courtsmartial under the Army Act. limiting the maximum penalty that can be imposed for military offences in time of peace to three months' imprisonment, Mr Gregory claims that this amendment is a proof of the. soundness of his contention. But we may suggest to Mr Gregory that amending acts are constantly introduced merely to explain the precise purpose of the law as it originally stood, and the fact that Parliament passed the amending Act in this form is positive proof that the law was meant lo be so interpreted in the first place, and would have been so interpreted if ever the occasion for its application had arisen. Mr Gregory may console himself if he pleases with the'belief that the Amending Act would never have been passed if it had not been for the anti-militarist agitation: and he may, if he chooses, continue his admonitions to the Parliament and the people of New Zealand as to the dangers in which our inexperience and ignorance have involved us all. Apparently the "pacifists" believe that ou this subject they possess an absolute monopoly of human wisdom. But we do not thinthat New Zealand is likely to be much affected by this determined effort on the part of irresponsible outsiders to teach us how to manage our own affairs

We may add that Mr. Gregory's letter came to us encased in a florid and imposing envelope, inscribed in lam-e type with copies of resolutions passed by the Christchurch "anti-militarists" urging everybody to keep clear of this country till the Defence Act is repealed. He further encloses some circulars printed in red ink, headed with the inspiring legend "Your son may he shot" (a most disingenuous title for a circular purporting to explain the Defence Amendment Act, November, 1912), and concluding with these ominous words: "A lad of IS may be ordered to shoot his own father." {*•_ far as this last tragic warning is concerned, we presume that even in England if a father is a burglar, or a Tioter, or a murderer, and his son is a policeman, the son, under some circumstances, may be ordered to shoot his father, and this would apparently in ..Mr. Gregory's eyes constitute a sound argument for" the "abolition of the police force. But as regards the appeal made by Mr. Gregory and his friettds to

inte-dim* emigrants not on any account to go to New Zealand or Australia if they object to compulsory national training, w e sincerely hope that this will have the desired effect. For we hold strongly that if a country is not worth defending it cannot be worth living in, and we would be very sorry to see New Zealand populated by the "anti-militarist" type of immigrant. On this one point we cordially agree with Mr. Gregory that the further he and his friends keep away from New Zealand the better for us all.