STRONG PROTEST.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19667, 10 July 1929, Page 15

STRONG PROTEST.

STUDENTS AND MILITARY SERVICE.

PRESBYTERY UNANIMOUS. Two Presbyterian Divinity students. Messrs Richards and Miller, were deprived of their civil rights, and fined in the Magistrate's Court, Auckland, recently, because of their refusal, on conscientious grounds, to comply with the provisions of the Defence Act. Yesterday the Christchureh Presbytery considered the matter, and decided to support the resolution of protest passed by the Public Questions Committee of the General Assembly. The following motion was carried unanimously:— "The Presbytery of Christchurch, in view of the decision of the General Assembly to support the claim of certain Auckland students for exemption from military service, on the ground of their conscientious objections to render such service, affirms the principle of the rights of conscience, and strongly supports the Assembly's Public Questions Committee in the line of action it proposes to take. "The Presbytery assures the Committee of its approval of the efforts to bo made to secure (a) the review of the sentence; (b) removal of the difficulties which have grown up in connexion with the rights of conscience in the matter of military training, when such rights are claimed in good faith on the testimony of trustworthy witnesses by members of the Presbyterian Church; and (c) the prescription and gazetting of alternative service by the Govern-or-in-Council." *'V«ry Severe Sentence." In moving the resolution the Rev. J. A. Allen read a copy of the findings of the Public Questions Committee of the Assembly passed on July 2nd. He characterised the sentences as very ' severe, especially in view of the fact that the lads were Divinity students, and the Court's action might have a serious bearing on their abi.ity to cany out the functions of the ministry. It seemed that they would have to go to gaoL The Dunedin Committee had taken up a very firm stand, and had been supported by the Dunedin and Wellington Presbyteries, while the Auckland Presbytery was considering the matter. The mover said he had consulted with members of the Presbytery and with the help of the Rev. Mr Hutchison had drawn up the motion. The motion amounted simply to supporting the Dunedin Committee in the main lines of its action. On the following day Dr. Merrington, Master of Knox College, would meet the Minister for Justice as a deputation. It was some two years since the question first arose, and since then it had been carried on by the authorities. The Courts had refused exemption because the lads were Presbyterians, and not members of a sect which held that adherents could not be soldiers. This was the background of the case, although the position might have changed a little recently! The Wellington Assembly took up the case in 1927 and again in 1928 and the Wellington Committee supported the claims. Comprehensive and adequate testimony as to the lads' sincerity was brought bofore the Court by members of the Auckland Presbytery, and this should have been sufficient to have convinced anybody. The Dunedin Committee had carried out the clearly defined will of the Assembly. It was not an easy or popular case to deal with, and it was only right that they should give Dr. Merrington their backing. He hoped there was no great need to plead the rights of conscience. •'lntegrity of Conscience." The integrity of the individual conscience was the main guide of life, but the implication of the Court's decision was that it must bow down before the State. People might ask whether overy twist and whim of conscience was to be regarded, but this was neither. It was a reputable attitude and might be respected, yet it was not generally acknowledged. The students were in excellent company when they took up their attitude, and it was not for the Presbytery to discuss whether the lads were right or Mr Allen read a number of names of prominent British churchmen, from a pamphlet written by the Rev. J. Barr. All pleaded for respect for the men who took up this stand, he said. Under the British Military Service Act of the war, all clergymen were exempted from service, and the Act contained just such a clause as they were appealing for. Mr Allen a T so quoted from a speech in the Commons by Sir Herbert Samuel, Home Secretary during the war, in support of his contentions. Lord Roberts, he said, in connexion with the proposed use of British troops in Ireland before the war, had pleaded for the rights of conscience, without which he said the Army must be destroyed. Mr Allen read the text of the exemption clause in the New Zealand Defence Act, of 1909. This was amended in 1912, there being two significant changes in the amendment. These apparently were for the purpose of extending the provisions of the clause, so as to make it cover not only churches and creeds, but individuals holding such beliefs. The amendment meant something—it was not put in merely for a pretty use of words.

Not Impartial? Only two or three weeks after Mr Richards had been lined £5 on the previous occasion a young Methodist in Wellington applied for exemption, and was given it without any question of alternative service. He was not raising the question of alternative service in the motion, and he hoped he had said enough to justify submitting it. (Applauee.) Seconding the motion, the Eev. W. B. Hutchison referred to the able way in which Mr Allen had supported it. The speaker found himself in agreement with what the mover had said. He and the mover represented somewhat different viewpoints on the general question, but they were in agreement on this particular "aspect. The Church must stand for the inviolability of conscience. A certain confusion had arisen, and the Magistrates had treated the matter as though to indicate that one class of conscientious objection was to be treated in one category and another class in another. They held that Presbyterians were quibbling when they objected to military service. As a Church they did stand for the right of conscience," and for the right of conscience to be respected. Whether these lads were right or wrong, they had the right of conscience. It was a severe sentence to take from a Divinity student, whose whole life was devoted to humanitv, his civil rights for a period of ten years. The speaker would regard it as a disgrace if such a thing happened to him.

"Weil Conceived and Very Necessary." Mr J. R. Logan said the motion was well conceived and very necessary. No proper regulations had been made when the last amendment of the Act was passed. The clause allowed the Magistrate to order alternative service, and the speaker considered the students had made a mistake in refusing it. Magistrates got a hard time through public

criticism, and they were •within their rights in ordering alternative service. The Rev. Theo. Paterson said he could not see that Eichards was wrong in refusing alternative service. The sentence was an appalling one. (Loud applause.) The Rev. Mr Allen said that the alternative service in New Zealand was to be done under orders from the Drill Hall and entered in the Defence Department's books as military service. Such alternative service was not pressed in cases where Presbyterians were not involved. On the same day as Richards was fined a Seventh Day Adventist at Pukekohe was not penalised, but was told he must render alternative service if it was prescribed. The point was that it was not. He hoped Dt. Merrington would ask the Minister on how many occasions alternative service had been required. (Applause.) The motion was carried unanimously.