MILITARY SERVICES

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 141, 4 March 1918, Page 6

MILITARY SERVICES

Sir,—The Prime Minister's repließ to my questions are beautifully naive or disingenuous I He is perfectly well awaro that the real object of the Bill, which passed the Lower House and was ultimately rejected by Parliament, was to exempt clergymen and Marist Brothers, though the designation, Marist Brothers, was electuarized for innocents abroad under the general "stylo'_' of "teachers whether of public or 'private' schools I" Could anything be more disingenuous? Fancy trying on a game of this sort on an intelligent community after practically all the teachers of public and private schools liable or eligible for military service (with the exception of the Marist Brothers) had'already volunteered! Tho point is: Parliament lefuscd to exempt clergymen and teachers, and yet Sir James Allen (if tho Press can be relied on) announced some time ago that the military boards had resolved to exempt clergymen and religious orders I Where, when and how came tho military boards to acquire power and authority thus to defeat the express intention of .Parliament? Will the Prime Minister, frankly, tell us whether he, his Cabinet, or any member thereof had anything tn do with it?

With regard to the Premier's answer to the question as to why the niilitaryi medical and efficiency boards were not sworn in, let me say that Magistrates Hnd Judges are invariably. regarded as men of integrity, "unbiased and._ impartial," and yet they are sworn in to discharge* their duties impartially, faithfully and conscientiously. The members of military, medical, and efficiency boards—though mere nominees of interested politicians—are of such exceptional integrity and so "unbiased and impartial" that (as the Premier would have it) thero was "no necessity" to swear them in—more especially as the Act made no provision for doing sol That the Act made no provision for doing so is but a palpable reflection on those who framed" it and on those who passed'it into law! Tiie Premier's reply to my question regarding the hoys of nineteen who have been conscripted is probably correct, but if (as the Premier puts it) "a small number" of the l.ovs of 19 failed to state tho months and date of their births, w r hen filling in their forms, surely the Department could have communicated with that "small number" privately and asked them to supply the missing particulars, rather than take the shortest and unkindest cut of all —that of conscripting them and inflicting an indignity upon them!—l am, HUGH MACKENZIE. February 28. ' -