The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1009. NATIONAL SERVICE AND PRIVATE CONSCIENCE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 689, 14 December 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1009. NATIONAL SERVICE AND PRIVATE CONSCIENCE.

The great difficulties of the question presented to the Pbime Minister yesterday by the deputation of Friends who called to protest against the-Defence Bill aro ample oxcuso for any shortcomings that may be seen in Sir Joseph's reply. Even in Great Britain, whoro compulsory training has been discussed for- years by tho best minds in the kingdom, thoro is nothing like a settled opinion amongst the friends of national service as to'the absolute rights of the Quakers' demand for liberty from tho obligations involved. In Now Zealand, where practically no consideration at all has been given by Parliament or tho public to the conflict between private conscience and public duty in the question of national defence, it would be too much to expect the Prime Minister to expound the full philosophy of the matter all at once. Sir Joseph must be complimented, however, upon tho discretion of his reply to tho deputation. It was generally admirable, but we aro hopeful that careful reflection—if he gets time for it—will harden up what wo take to be his disliko for the idea that "conscientious objection" shall be given play enough to make a mess of the Defence Bill; It is fortunately not necessary to discuss the wickedness or goodness of war. Discussion must proceed on the certain premiss that the risk of war is a fact. It should not be necessary to say that wo reverence the ideals of the Society of Friends: everybody knows how much British civilisation owes to tho Quakers, and nobody can wish light-heartedly to do violence to tho religious scruples of the Friends. The obvious thing, of course, would be .to provide that any member of the communion who mado a statutory declaration that he had a conscientious objection to being trained to the use of arms for the defence of his I country should be granted a certificate of exomption. It 'ought naturally to follow] that he should be required, as in Switzerland, to pay a special tax, and to aljow himself to bc_ registered for noncombatant duties. But it is contrary to sound principles to single out any communion for particular troatment. Parliament must therefore, if it entertains a "conscience clause" at all, make it an open one. But it is obvious that such a clause would open the way to a univorsal avoidance of tha obligations sought to bo imposed by the Bill. And such a clause is Clauee 93 of tho Bill as it emerged from its perfunctory trial by the Select Committee. This clause reads as follows: Nothing in tHie Act shall require any per- 1 son to bear arms or perform or undorgo military service or training if tho doctrines of hie religion forbid him to tio so, but every such person shall be liablo to perform an an equivalent to such servico and training such non-combatant duties as aro prescribed by tho Governor-in-Council: Tho burden of proving exemption under this section shall rost on tho person claiming exemption. It is surely manifest that in reepcot of the latter portion of this clause there can be no effective working without the risk of creating bitterness and disorder of a most dangeroua character. Supposing th,it an Episcopalian, or a Catholic, or a Presbyterian, or a member of any communion whatsoever, asserts that tho doctrines of his religion forbid him to enter a military camp, who is to challenge his assertion? Certainly not tho State, nor any State official. We can conceive no moro unpleasant prospect than that the State, through its officers, should undertake to decide what is, pnd what is not, the correctness of any person's reading of,this or that doctrine. Tho State must remain—and must by all friends of ordor bo kept—deaf,. dumb and blind as to the meaning or the merits of religious dogmas. The clause wo have quoted is, so far as its general purport ie concerned, the only alternative to a

general compulsion under which oxemption would be refused save to such persons as arc unfit or arc required to attend to tho vital machinory of civil government. The impossibility of admitting that clause moans, therefore, that "conscientious objections" cannot bo I. admitted at all. The Bill is intended, after all, to meet a practical situation. Who, in tho event of invasion, and bloodon our soil, would refuse to resist the invader's bayonet? Who, in such a case, would passively submit himself to murder 1 We trust that tho Government will tako a firm stand in this matter, . and secure that the principle of compulsory training shall not bo embarrassed by illusory ethical maxims.