"NO MORE WAR."

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19357, 9 July 1928, Page 11

"NO MORE WAR."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—ln fairness to the No More War movement, will you please allow me to correct the impression which may have been given by a report in Friday's issue of your paper. Under the heading "A Local Petition," in preface to remarks by members of the Wavy League, it was stated that "people were busy soliciting signatures to a petition to abolish compulsory military training and to ask Parliament to cease contributing its quota towards the upkeep of the Royal Navy." If such a petition exists, it is certainly not being sponsored by the No More War movement. That organisation is soliciting signatures to two petitions as part of a peace campaign which it •is conducting, not in Christchurch alone, but throughout the Dominion. Of these petitions, the one prays for "the immediate abolition of conscription, i.e., compulsory military training under the Defence Act, in New Zealand," while the other asks for "the holding, at General Elections, of a referendum to decide whether New Zealand shall adopt a. policy ot immediate total disarmament in her land, sea, and air forces, accompanied by the immediate suspension of all contributions war preparations outside of the Dominion." A referendum, please note. The No More War movement does not for a moment suggest that the policy it believes in should be forced on an unwilling people; but it does suggest that a question of such vital importance to the people as their defence should be based on faith in the way of trust and love or on faith in the pagan way of armaments is a question on which the people themselves should have the right to decide. Members of the Navy League must remember that the policy of preparedness they insist on seems as ill-advised to many as the policy suggested by the No More War movement seems tg them. As eminent an authority as General Sir Frederick B. Maurice has declared: "I believe now that if you prepare thoroughly and efficiently for war, you get war." _When war comes, the Government claims the right to compel the people to take part m it. Is it then, the inevitable mark of a "crank" to ask that the people have some say in determining a policy which may be a matter of lite or 01 death to them? . Perhaps you will grant me space to point out here another misconception entertained by members of the Navy League. Mr Treleaven is reported to have said that "if such a pacifist policy were carried into effect "{New Zealand we would have to withdraw from the League of Nations. Howis it, then, that Germany, who has had perforce to adopt a policy of disarmament is nevertheless a member of the I»,gieP-Y Sk !te., w pAGEi Hon. Sec. No More War Movement. July 7th, 1928.