LIBERTY AND NATIONAL SERVICE.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15452, 3 December 1915, Page 3

LIBERTY AND NATIONAL SERVICE.

10 Tin: editor or ''rnk tress." Sir, —1 have often thought it would be interesting to put up a number ol articles appearing from time to time in the editorial portion of your paper in parallel- columns. As I write I liavo before me your article 01 the 20th November headed ','Thc Liberty of tho Subject." ! and your article of November 27th, headed "'Universal Service. ' The viewpoints of the same subject are so different that I car. hardly imagine them to be the work of the ■ same person. Of course, it is commonI ly supposed that tlie average journal- • ist 01 to-day writes according to orders, j and not according to conviction. In j your second article you refer to "'Mill I .'ilid Mill's critic, Sir .James Fitzjames { Stephen.Was it an indiscretion in | the writer of the first article to refer ■ t<; Car.'yie, Mazzuu and Matthew Arnold'/ Are those the minds that would have advocated your policy of the -7th, that one man should the greatest of all services, whilst others should be left free to make a challgi'-holise <>i the Temple? You quoted Matthew Arnold on the 20th. I><i yon recollect that it is lie who remind-, iw that Coethe, wlien pressed Jlaifl about the immorality of Myron's poems, replied that after all they are not- so immoral as the newspaper-; must t point out the application ? You hint at barbed-wire entanglements being erected by those who take the only moral view of universal service, but voi 1, like the German.-,, have constructed your weapons or offence in tho chemical laboratory. Might I suggest that you turn up your own issue of the 20th and consider the work of I)r. Walter llathenan. to whom has been entrusted the industrial organisation of Germany lor the war. Is there iiy lesson to be learned there—would it not be policy to put our house in similar orderl-' I do not mention "Duty" as that word, with all it means, wouid M-ein to have been left beniud '» the school books. In your last article you refer to the "undefined jxilicv called the 'Conscription of Wealth." " Does the mysterious editorial "We"' forget that the country has "conscription of wealth" at the present moment well and clearly defined? What were the few members at the recent Farmers' Union meeting annoyed about —is there much more than an extension ivquiried? Which is more in keeping with the dignity of a nation engaged in what closely resembles a life and death struggle—the raiding of necessary; funds bv pedlars' tricks from the wili- i ing contributor, or by State-organised ' contributions from every person in receipt of wage-, salary, or income? Surely the last article was machine-made; how otherwise could we have in this Christian country, in this moral age. the purse ranked higher than that wonderful thing, the life of man! Do you realise what you advocate? That one man should he called upon and, it necessary, compelled to lay down liis life - lor his home, for his country in tho hour of need, but that a man may be called upon, hut not compelled, even if it be necessary, to lay down his purse. .Surely you.do not mean that! You, in your small way, refer to universal service—for I ' won't allovv you to split it—as ''undefined jiolicy." but your own first article was definite enough. , Universal scrviee in the broadest sense, and in the highest sense. J stated that it should he brought into force now; you profess io differ front me on that paint; Will you kindly refer to your own am! other newspapers ; do you note that we are. 000 short of the requirement, for this month's Reinforcement*? Have you noticed the efforts of the willing workers to collect moneys for. tho numerous funds and the differences between the various committees? You will have noticed also that if 39 sheepfarmers of Canterbury holding more than 10.000 sheep' contributed .2s fid nor sheep, £79,700 would be netted. Hut what need to go further? You know that many men who could go to the front are with us'gtill: that those profiting by the war are not contributing fairly, anil some in the province of Canterbury are preventing their sons from .going, as well as nursing their bank accounts. Hut don't misunderstand me. J lav the blame of backwardness on 110 one section of the people in this Dominion. The present moment has proved that "rank is but the guinea stamp; tho man's the gowd for a' that." The three sons of Sir John Kindlay have ail gone, and one lias died on the field of battle, whilst another is being, nursed'back to health ; and the three sons of .Sir Francis Bell, the present Leader of the Council, have also gone, and so on, Avith the sons of-the labourer and the mason, thousands have gone, and thousands hayo given. Hut what of those who will not do either, though able? They may prate of "Liberty." but you, Sir, can refer them to Cnrlyle's words, still t'Toni "Past and Present"—"'the liberty especially which has to purchase itself by social isolation, and each man standing separate from the other, having no business with him. but a. cash account; this is such a liberty as the earth seldom saw: as the earth will not long put up with, recommend it how you may.''—Yours, etc., ,10HN BARIt. Redclilfs, December 2nd, 1910.