CITIZENS OF EIRE

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23352, 11 June 1941, Page 3

CITIZENS OF EIRE

LIABILITY TO SERVE IN ARMED FORCES CASES BEFORE APPEAL BOARD (P.A.) AUCKLAND, June 10. The liability of natives of Eire to serve in the Dominion’s armed forces •while resident in New Zealand, was discussed at a sitting of the No. 1 Armed Forces Appeal Board, when appeals on the ground .that they were not British subjects, and on conscientious grounds, were heard in respect of 13 reservists. The appellants were William Coleman, a carpenter, Denis Whooley, a labourer, Patrick Joseph Whooley, a labourer, Thomas Scannell, a labourer, Michael Whooley, a chamber hand, Michael Lafferty, a bricklayer, James Thomas McDonnell, a carpenter, Joseph McNamara, a labourer, Michael John Luby, a farm labourer, Patrick Egan, a labourer, Patrick Joseph Lynch, a porter-barmaa, George O’Connor, a labourer, Wffliam Reidy, a barman. Mr Robinson and Mr Ongley, of Wellington, appeared for the appellants, and Mr Cox was the Crown representative. Mr Ongley said that with the authority of the Government, he had written to the Prime Minister of Eire asking for a direction regarding men in the position of the appellants. No reply had been received. He had hoped that there would be a conference among the authorities to get a principle laid down. Some of the men had asked to be allowed to return to Eire, and others had offered to do competent noncombatant work in New Zealand. “We do not think the regulations contemplated cases of this kind when they were drawn,” continued Mr Ongley. “If the appeals are dismissed, the onus of saying what is to become of these men will be thrown upon the Government, and that may lead to a very undesirable position. We are then going to be faced with the fact that we are conscripting unwilling Irishmen.” The chairman said that what happened to the men after the appeals were heard was a matter for the Government and the army authorities. He could not imagine them being forced into the army against their will. The board would hear evidence, and consider what attitude it would take afterwards. Lafferty said he came to New Zealand in 1939 under a Government contract guaranteeing him two years’ employment. He found that the Government did not live up to its obligations, and asked permission to return to Eire. He was informed .that as there was a war on, he was a British subject, and must remain here, Appeal Adjourned The chairman said that the obligation was on the appellant to satisfy the Director of National Service that he was not entitled to Serve on the grounds of residential status. "I think the appellant has a case, and the appeal will be adjourned sine die and submitted to the director.” A similar decision was given in McDonnell’s case, which was also based on residential status. Evidence was given in connexion with the conscientious objections qf the appellants. Thomas Scannell said he was 45 yeares of age. “I had experiences with the Black and Tans in the trouble in Ireland, and was imprisoned without trial, and got my release through hunger striking. I was captured on another occasion, but escaped. I saw the burning of homes and the destruction of property.” Those experiences were the reason why he would not bear arms, not even in the defence of Ireland. Evidnce was also given by other appellants. McDonnell, McNamara, Luby and Egan said they would not fight for Ireland. The three Whooley brothers and O’Conhor said they would only fight for Ireland if it was attacked. The appeals of Scannell, Lafferty, McDonnell, Luby. Egan, and McNamnre were allowed on conscientious grounds. Those of, the Whooleys, O’Connor, and Reidy' were dismissed. The cases of Coleman and Lynch were adjourned to allow them to give evidence. ■