LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2791, 8 June 1916, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

MILITARY SERVICE BILL,

SINGLE MEN WITH DEPENDANTS. Sir,—l wish to emphatically enter a protest against no differentiation being mado in the Military Service Bill between single men without dependants and single men with dependants. An unmarried man with several dependants is surely entitled to consideration of some sort. Whether, under the Bill as it now stands, ho is simply left to the Appeal Board to he dealt with, or whether single, men without dependants will be called up before him, is obscure, or at the best not too plainly indicated. It looks as if l)oth classes of single men. are grouped together, and that he (the man with dependants) lias no standing at all, with somo vague [possibility of tho Appeal Board postponing his being called up until the unmarried with uo dependants are all accounted for. Is ho not surely entitled to a clear-cut definition, the same as ard widowers, married men, etc., in tho Bill? It is certainly a slipshod business at present, and I look to see the obvious and palpable justice of the claim of the single man who has dependants properly recognised and clearly defined in the Bill. Clearly defined, I repeat. The First Division should Im> classified. Why not? And iii somo instances ho should be in tho Seoond Division; certainly he should raiik after single men without dependants. As regards tho sittings of the Appeal Board—are these to be open to the Press? Is a man to be expected to discuss all his most private affairs in front of an inquisitive public? And will such information be published in, the newspapers? I conjmend these matters to consideration. —I am, etc., J.H." J uno 6. Sir, —Tho Military Service Bill now before Parliament is to my way of thinking very unfair in its classification. Single men with aged dependants have just as much responsibility as a married man. let they are in No. 1 Division, and a married man without children (whoso wife in many instances is quite young and able to work for her living again, if need be) is classed in No. 2 Division. If the time has arrived for the single men with dependants to bo allotted to No. 1 Division, I certainly .think a married man without children should be there also. Mr. Editor, I would be very pleased to get your opinion on the matter. —I am, etc., , ' rrm . '• INQUIRER/ I f hero is much to be said for our correspondent's contention. It should be remembered, however, that the. Appeal Board have power to deal with cases of single men with dependants.] '

Sir. —I have been following with inter est tho letters addressed to you apparently by pen married since the commencement of the war, protesting against tlioii beiiipf included, in the First Division of those to be called up for military service, and I. think the time is now opportune for stating the position of such men as it appears to a man married before tho war commenced. In the first place, X feel I am right in saying that the classification as set out iii tho Hill by wliioh men married after the war commenced were includd in Division. One met with almost universal satisfaction, • the- exception being those who -had so married. Now, an agitation has sprung up to have the Bill amended by including some ot least of these men in the Second Division, where, I take it, they will be placott on an equal footing with those who married and incurred responsibilities and liabilities before the war started. I maintain that no man. who married after (lit. war had the right to bo placed on the name footing as those who married bo (ore. Once the war commenced the posbibility, if not the probability ot mill' tary service must havo occurred to those about to marry, and I. know of marriages which took place before the end of 19H, In which the dominant thought was that by so marrying the-man would escape military service. Of the marriages in 1915 andonwards the - probability of active servico must have been in! tlio mind of each intending husband,, yet thesn men, well knowing what they were in. curring, qje to be placed 011 an equal footing with thoso who married befom the war was thought of.. The agitation is apparently meetinfl with some favour, and as this is so it in as well for the people to know the number of marriages since the war commenced, and what it would mean if tho meii who so married wcro excluded from thu First Division. Since tho war thero have been • celebrated ill New Zealand lust 18,000 marriages, of which 10,0CHj were celebrated during 1915.. Allowing one-quarter of the total number to . be military weddings, the balance is 13,500, giving us this number of men of military age married since tho war. Deducting one-quarter of this balance as being unfil for military duty—though there should not be this proportion, seeing they were fit to undertake matrimonial duties, " 0 I final balance of some 10,000. I maintain that these men—sufficient for at least four monthly reinforcements—should rot be put on an equal footing with men married previous to tho w'ar. If the authorities think that they or some of them should be exempted from the First Division than I contend they should hare a Second Division to themselvfs, and a Third Division, consisting of jmen married before the war, should .bo formed, or as an alternative it should be insisted that they (tho rnon married, utter th« war) form the first section to be called up in the Second Division. As stated above, they took tbeir responsibilities' with a : knowledge of tho position—some undoubtedly with a view'to shirking military service—and now they should . not be placed in the same position as men whose responsibilities were incurred at a time when there was, no thought of thaii ever being called on to perform military service.—l am, etc., ' LOGIC.