The Dominion. WEDNESDAY. JUNE 7, 1916. MILITARY AGE AND FITNESS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2790, 7 June 1916, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY. JUNE 7, 1916. MILITARY AGE AND FITNESS

The House of Representatives devoted a good deal of timo yesterday to the consideration of the paragraph in tho interpretation clause of tho Military Service Bill which, declares that' "military age" means any age not less than twenty years and less than forty-six years. There has been much discussion at various times during the progress of tho war as to tho period in life in which men aro most fitted for military service. Some people are of opinion that tho ago limit might bo extended from forty-five to fifty, or even to fifty.five. But.the controversy has been keenest regarding the junior ago limit. It has been strongly contended—and with good reason —that it is highly undesirable, that immature youths should be sent to the front. Experience has proved that lads in their teens are not able to endure the hardships of war as well as fully developed men. Of courso there are exceptional cases. Some lads of oighteen may bo just as strong and fit as a man of twenty-five, but generally speaking the 'boy soldier is more liablo to break down during an arduous campaign than soldiers of mdro mature years. He is more apt to fall a victim to disease and exhaustion. His body is not sufficiently set, and he has not the sanio firm control over his emotional nature as the ordinary adult. Tho over-young soldier cannot endure the mental and physical strain and shock caused by suu'i a war as at present with a resisting.power cqtial to that of a man in his prime. These and othor similar facts wero mentioned by members during yesterday's debate, and an appeal was made to the Government to discourage the enlistment of enthusiastic lads anxious to fight for their country. However niuch we may admiro their spirit it is nccessary to restrain their ardour, both for their own sake and for tho sake of military efficiency. The assurance given by the Minister of Defence that no ono under the ago of twenty will be pormitted to enlist went far to allay tho misgivings of members, and will be received with general satisfaction. Great laxity Bas beon shown in this matter in the p-ist, and it is time that the Defence authorities exercised proper care. Some members advocated that the military age should begin- at twentyone instead of twenty. One or two speakers advocated twenty-three, but thu Houso was not inclined to pay serious attention to this impracticable suggestion. The British Military Servico Act fixes the military age at from eighteen to forty, inclusive, but thero is amplo justification in reason and experience for tho ages fixed in tho New Zealand Bill. The arguments against compelling laris under twenty to join our Expeditionary Forces arc exceedingly strong, and we have heard of no convincing reason why men between forty and forty-five should not make excellent soldiers.

It is neoessary'to guard againsttho danger of boiiig misled by the quotation of particular instances of premature manhood or of exceptionally youthful and active men of middleage. It is the average standard of physical fitness that should be the deciding factor in fixing the military age. There may bo exceptional men over the age of fifty who would make good soldiers, but as Dii. Newman remarked, the experience of past wars has shown that, generally speaking, men over forty-five cannot endure the strain' and stress of a severe campaign. It is only when nations are at their last gasp that they raise the military age to fiftyfive. Taking all things into consideration, the period fixed in tha Bill now before Parliament seems fair and reasonable both from the military and civilian points of view, The House wisely dccided to adhere to the Bill, and motions to fix tho ago at one ond at twenty-one and at fifty-five at the other were . rejected by very large majorities. The subject was a reasonable enough one for ■ discussion, but it soon became evident that the irreconcilable; opponents of the Bill .were endeavouring to make use of its supporters in order to block its progress. .Tho members who sincerely desire to improve the Bill and to make it as perfect as possible will have to keep a wary _ eye on the tictics of the obstructionists, who make no scerct of their intention to do their utmost to prevent the'measure from reaching the Statute Book. The friends of'the Bill need not, at any rate for' tho present, forego their rights of criticism, but they should make a special endeavour to state their views as concisely as possible and to avoid repetitions and digressions. It would be a mistake to waste time in replying to the speeches of those members who simply want to prolong tho discussion and who hope to strengthen their position by creating dissension among tho supporters of tho National Government. Those who believe in the foundation principles of the Bill should deliberately ignore the obstructionists and resolutely decline to be drawn into controversy with them. The supporters of the Bill should make it unmistakably clear to the small but talkative mm-

orifcy that they know tho difference between fair criticism, and obstruction, and that dilatory and divisive tactics cannot possibly succced. The country is in no _ humour for foolish and futile political plotting and wrangling. This is a war session, and tho neccssary business should be transacted in a prompt and businesslike manner. If ever there was a timo when tho Standing Order oi the House of Representatives relating to "tedious repetition" should be strictly interpreted that time is sew.