OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17691, 17 February 1923, Page 12

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

COMMENTS BY NEW LABOUR MEMBER. (SPECIAL TO "THE PBES3.") WELLINGTON, February 16. "The member for Giaborne has said that the Labour Party is against religion," said Mr J. A. Lee (Labour, Auckland East) in the House of Kepresentatives yesterday. "The Labour Party stands for religious toleration, but such is the Prussianistic nature of the State in this country that the time has arrived when a man cannot work in certain occupations if he possesses certain beliefs without denying those beliefs." In support of his statement Mr Lee mentioned by name a master of arts who had fought all through the war, had been twice decorated, and had been "considered sufficiently loyal to write the history of the Auckland Battalion." On his return this man, desiring to re-enter the teaching profession, in which he had formerly been engaged, had found that he must take an oath of allegiance before doing so. He wrote to the Minister of Education: "I regard myself as absolutely loyal, yet I could only take this oath with some such reservation as the following: 'So long as the above continues not to conflict with what I believe to be my duty to God.' " He received from the Minister of Education, said Mr Leo, a reply to the effect that he could not be permitted to make the reservation. The Minister (the Hon. C. J. Parr): Will you read my letter? Mr Lee: I will after I have got through, if I have the time. This did not meet with the Minister's approval, or with that of some of the members, and Mr Leo was prevailed upon to read the letter as follows: — "I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter, and to state that neither the Department nor myself has any power to modify tl t form of the oath of allegiance prescribed by Parliament in the amendment to the Education Act. I would point out that the oath of allegiance in the form prescribed was taken by ministers of religion of all denominations who served as chaplains during the recent war, and that it is taken by every person who now enters the Dominion. None of the chaplains referred to appears to havo felt that the required oath would bring them into conflict with their duties to God. As no ono has power to vary the terms of the Act, it must be left to yourself whether or not you find a difficulty where none appears to exist.'' Mr Lee said he would not assert that he himself would declino to take the oath prescribed, because he hardly held the same views as the man in question, but he respected the man's convictions. Until Mr Page, of Christchurch, had been dismissed for refusing to take the oath without the reservation, this man had believed the reservation to be implied in the oath. The Page case had resulted in its being laid down that in the eye of the State, the Minister of Education and the Reform Cabinet wero of more importance that a man's conception of his God. The Minister: Did he take the oath when he went into camp? Mr Lee: Yes, because he believed that the reservation was implied. The Minister: So it is. Mr Lee: The question is: The Minister of Education versus a man's faith.