Untitled

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16315, 12 September 1918, Page 6

Ail interesting decision by the Court of Appeal is reported from London today. An Englishman who -was a prisoner in Germany, and who was released on parole—having given an undertaking not to boar arms against Germany—was declared by a magistrate to be liable, nevertheless, for military service. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the lower Court, and on very sound grounds. It is easy to argue—and no doubt some people would argue—that the Germans, through their consistent disregard for their pledged word, had forfeited all claim to the observance of pledges made to them by others. This is perfectly true. But in considering a pledge given to Germany one must note that more important than the obligation to Germany is the obligation to oneself. One would do oneself more damago than one could do Germany by breaking one's pledged word. It is not surprising, but it is none the less gratifying, to see this most salutary principle upheld by his Majesty's Judges. Tho moral law does not cease to bind us, however utterly our enemy may cast it

from him. A curious dispute, in which some very .crave questions were involved, recently took place in Canada. The conscription law in Canada provides for exemptions, but the Government issued an Order-in-Council calling up certain classes and in .their case abolishing the right of exemption. One man affected by this order appealed to the Courts, and the Supreme Court of Alberta ruled that the Order-in-Council was illegal. This, one would hav« supposed, would have ended the matter, but the militarv authorities refused to obey the order of the Court on a writ of habeas corpus. One officer against whom the Court issued the order concealed himself and evaded service of a subpoena. In one dia-

trict the Military Registrar declared that the Court's judgment had "produced unrest and defiance of the law among men now called to the colours" —an extraordinarily foolish remark, since it was the defiance of the Court's decision that was harmful, if anything was. The proper course to adopt, as aif English paper pointed out, was to obey the Court and amend the law is quickly as possible. Only evil can come of defying the Courts, whatever the circumstances may be. ♦ Tho South African papers Tcprint from "Ons Land" a curious story .from its Pretoria correspondent, writing on July 9th. On June 29th, he said, the Government officials, instead of being allowed to enjoy their Saturj day half-holiday, were ordered to report in the Union Buildings at 7.30 p.m. The military were ordered out. all the roads leading to Pretoria were guarded, and the police were kept in readiness at the barracks. The roads to Pretoria were also guarded on the Sunday following. General Hertiaog, who was to speak at the Town Hall, did so, and tho meeting passed off without any incident. The explanation of all this was the discovery of a plot to raid the capital, kidnap the Government, and set up a temporary Nationalist Government in its place. .So far as can be gathered, this brilliant plan was arranged by some 200 extremists, without the approval of tlie executive of the Nationalist Party. The official Nationalist leaders met and warned the public to keep quiet, and also warned the leaders of the adventure to give up the undertaking. It is supposed that the Government was informed of the plan by the man who was to have headed the raid. The plotters were not very clever, one may suppose, because the Prime Minister and several of his colleagues were absent from Pretoria. The incident is instructive as showing how seriously the Government regards tho danger lurking in the Nationalist agitation. Childish as this particular scheme undoubtedly must be accounted, yet the state of opinion in South Africa is such that the raid, if it had come off, might have been a spark leading to a serious flaming-up of extremist disaffection. The news that General Cadorna has been retired to an auxiliary position owing to advancing age, recalls the Caporetto disaster in 1917 and its sequel, which was the retirement of Cadorna, who was then the Com-mander-in-Chief, along with General I Porro and General Capelle. The failure at Caporetto was attributed to disaffection and loss of moral in the Army, but this explanation was not generallv regarded as adequate to the facts. It is now accepted that, the trouble was simply due to the suddenness and weight of the enemy attack and the initial weakness of the Italian positions. The three generals, although retired, were not dismissed, but held their normal rank with the usual pay connected with it. This was generally considered a suitable treatment of the case, for it cannot bo forgotten that Cadorna was the creator and inspirer of the Italian Army that first took the field and achieved such fine results.