COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14110, 1 August 1911, Page 7

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

(Br the Rxv. I. SmmoxsosO

(warrTF.x iron "xiia rsEssl")

Now that compulsory military training is down from the clouds, and is numbered among tho, concrete actualities of our public life, wo ar© beginning to realise that thoro is something Hko serious opposition to it. With the exception of the American, tho British citizen is lofs accustomed to coercive public measures than tho citizen of any other country. We have never been accustomed to those compulsions which arc accepted as inevitable by Continental nations. At last, however, ono of them has come along in a very mild form, and tho opposition -which was strangely quiescent when tho potion, was brewing is making itself heard more and more loudly now that wo aro called upon to drink it.

It is a plain fact that to many men tho military idea is not only distasteful, but peculiarly abhorrent, a species of violence to their nature. But it would never do to exempt from training those who could give no other reason for their objection than that they had no mind for it. The mesh would be too wide. Tho man who accepts and makes tho most of all tho advantages of national security should have a stronger reason for refusing to do his bit in maintaining that- eeenrity. As a rule this is reeo&uisod, and, accordingly, objectors usually quote somo general principle; as, for instance, when a man urges that ho is ft. man ot peace and brotherhood; or that ho is a Christian, and that fighting is opposed to tho .spirit and teaching of ; Christ; or that ho is a poor man who ! has very little to lose, and doesn't soo why ho should assist to defend tho country in the interests of those who havo more. There is a suspicion of Pharisaism about the self-styled peace party. Where is the man who is not a man of peace? Tho man who can find any satisfaction in the thought of war, as such, must be a monster, if not nonexistent among us, yot so rar© as to bo negligible. Tho peaco party is the party of civilisation, of progress, of humanity and enlightenment, which is to say that wo all belong to it. But some* people will riot open their eyes to the fact that in tho actual world, ■ which is all the world we ha\'© to deal with, all peace is armed peace. Tho peaceful slumbor of a child, the peaceful lifo of tho homo, the peaceful pursuit of industrial vocations, the peaceful commercial and social development of a community, of a nation—over every one of these there is an armed power that stands for protection and security, and that makes tho poacefulness possible, things being as they are. In long periods of undisturbed tranquility the very existence of protecting guns and steel walk may be almost forgotten, but they are thcro all tho I time, and the "man of peace" ie ttsu&l--ily not conspicuously romiss in taking I advantage of the guarantee thus pro- • jvided. Sometimes he assumes the prophetic role, and, though the thunder of the last great cannonade has scarcely died away, ventures the dictum that there wil( bo no more war 1 But-though ho professes ■unbounded faith in nations, he has no faitli in his neighbours and fellow-citizen. Watch him going the rounds of doors and windows when he is leaving hie house for an hour, or when the family is retiring! And what if, one day, he surprise* a burglar inside P As a "man of peaco and brotherhood" he, Of course, de- ' clines a scuffle) but will he decline the aid of the athletic paster-by or resent tho appearance of a constable in the nick of tiineP Or tow would ha look if tho constable ajbso declared himself 9. man of peace and brotherhood P This is the situation. Our Very poaoe most be guarded by somebody. The real protest of the "man of peace" in agaiast being that somebody. In New Zealand we have a kind of oasis in tho world of labour. Why arc we left unmolested in this paradise? f Vast numbers of other races cost longing eyes upon our shores, many of them skilled workers of equal efficiency with our own, who in their owa countries have not one-third of the comforts and enjoyments of our people. Why are they not here sharing the good things with the men of peace and brotherhood P The fact that they are not wanted, and that their immigration. ' is prohibited by law, counts for nothing in itself. What is the uso of a law if wo cannot enforce it? The truth is clear that wo are left alone because those who would like to come in Crowds aro frightened to come, and they aro frightened, not of our laws, as such, ; but of the fighting, force behind them. - The logic of the situation, therefore, is that tho peace we talk so much about is virtually a kind of war. It is not actual war only because our challenge is not taken up. It is a case of power on tho one side and fear on the other. It is not a piece of paper that wo shake in the face of the would-be immijjrante it is a mailed fist._ It thus becomes an interesting question how far the men of "peace and brotherhood" who object to military training approve of this situation. Are they in favour of our immigration laws as a meane of keeping their brothers out of this country? If so, by what means but by forco of Arms Can they make those laws effectual?. Surely it is easy to see where true consistency lies in such a situation! A few^weeks ago oar local Socialist organisation declared in its Saturday advertisement that it had no quarrel with the Germans, the Japanese, etc. If we are to take it seriously, it was a courageous and inspiring manifesto, and shoved the Socialists to be at the opposite pole from the amazing selfishness that uttered its snarling protest when a few lads, not Chineso or Japanese, but British, arrived /in this British colony a few months ago. We repeat, it would bo interesting to know How many of these protesters, and how many of those in general who aro co nervously anxious to preserve this kingdom of heaven for those who are already in it, are opposing the new defence regulations on the score of their pacific and brotherly principles.

As to the objection based on Christ's teaching, it will be sufficient to say that the man who is too good a Christian to take his eharo witn his. followcitizens in preparing for the defence of his country, should be too good a Christian to loaf on the courage and devotion of others if trouble comes along. Christ lived for the ideal though he knew it would kill him. But he recognised facts: ho paid tribute, and told the people to "render unto Casear the things that are Ccoear's." Coming to the third, argument, wo have the man who. upon oeing called upon to aesist in the formation of a defence force, > takes an inventory pf bis belongings, and concludes that they are not worth, fighting for! Such an attitude involves the denial of every social - bond and inspiration. It is selfish, ctmtemptiblo, and a huge blunder to boot. For who are the peoplo upon whom the horrors of successful invasion, fall heaviest? Always the working classes and the poor. The exactions of the conqueror, the long period of commercial insecurity and chaos, tho fabulous prices of the necessaries of life, and the depreciation of property, all fall ultimately upon tho poorest, bringing untold miseries upon those at the bottom of tho social scale. The rich man may lose more than the artisan and the laboarer, bat in such a caeo the question is not what people loso but what they hay© left, aad of

course the man of financial resources comes off best every time. If a man is genuinely prepared, in ease of invasion, to patiently endure *he calamities it brings upon him without clamouring either for protection or compensation; if ho is prepared, pa- > tiently, and with religious resignation,, to see his relatives and friend.? shot down or bayoneted without rushing to their help, because it would bo sin to tnke life; and if he is prepared to lose his own life without striking a blow at his assailant, or expecting anybody cUo io do fo; tlion reasonable people will view sympathetically his refusal to bear amis.' Otherwise, it is difficult to" rfnist the conclusion that tho able-bodied man who objects to assist in the do-fv-ttco of his country must be a con-; scious shirker. j In social faith, and aspiration and i ideal wo arc all men of peace and ■. brotherhood, but it would b<? fatuous - in tho extreme to be so in toxica trrl with tho. thought of what the world ■ may be in, say, another hundred years, [ jv.=- to situt our eyes to oxif=tin<x ondi- j tions, and the plain duty of the hour j

It must bo admitted that we aro a long wav from tho realisation of brotherhood. Indeed, when one comes to look for tho real thing ono is almost forrod to tho conclusion that it is littlo more than a platform trick, exploited by every plausible self-seeker. Even in this alleged "God's own country, , ' ius in these Australasian communities generally, ono of tho most prominent features of our public life is our hateful spirit of cxrlnsivonf\-?s, and tho narrowing greed, which would shut the 'lour nqainst our own kith and kin from tho Britain that made us. Ho-.v-ovor enamoured of our ideals we may bo, actual conditions ;m» vorv far from bciriK ideal, find it is absurd for us to measure our duty on the supposition thru thov ar<> . International politks aro soothing with ambitions, and rivalries and joalousirs. and racial problems and national programmes. Surely tho existing Moroccan enibroglio, with its possibilities, ii sufficient to clinch my argument. Tho time for boating our " swords into ploughshares," and our "spears into pruning-hooks" is not quite yet.