ENGINEER’S APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 112, 5 February 1941, Page 7

ENGINEER’S APPEAL

Conscientious Objection To War Stated “To suggest that I should deliberately go and train, or prepare in any way to kill or malm my fellow-man, even assuming he is at fault, is abhorrent and impossible,” said Albert William Coffey, electrical engineer, who appealed against armed service on the gtounds of conscientious objection before the No. 4 Armed Forces Appeal Board at Wellington yesterday. “No war or other violence has ever settled any question,” stated Coffey. “This very appeal board is an admission of the futility of blind force. In the last war objectors were taken forcibly and maltreated to such an extent in some cases that they were physically broken, but even this exercise of force did not defeat their convictions. The whole of our domestic living is arranged to prevent strife and I can see no moral grounds for murder of which, to me, war is no more or less than an organized form when peoples have ceased to reason.” Appellant stated he belonged to no organized or recognized religious body. The Crown representative, Mr. C. O. Bell: Would you do work on electrical apparatus destined for war purposes? Appellant: Definitely no. Appellant said he knew his employers were one of the biggest contractors in England to the British Government, but he was unaware of any military contracts in New Zealand. If there were any invasion of New Zealand he believed it would be better not to resist; it would prevent slaughter. The country had the right to demand his specialized training but not his life- His obligation to the country was to carry on as he would in time of peace; this would be his duty. Mr. Bell: If defenceless people were attacked, supposing some womenfolk in the streets of Wellington, what would you do?—I might be inclined to mediate ; I would not kill anyone. It would be an, instinctive reaction to try to assist.

You do not object to Nazi rule? — 1 would rather be under British rule; I do not agree with the Nazis. Appellant said he was one of two engineers in New Zealand for a British electrical company. Kinley H. Black, engineer, said Coffey and be and another man had lived together from March, 11139. They held differing views. Coffey had always held any sort of peace preferable to war, and, though he did not agree with him, he felt him quite sincere. There were three young men in the house and their chief pastime was arguing on political, economic and other subjects. The chairman, Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M.: Most arguments between young men in boardinghouses are academic.

William A. Bloodworth, engineer, Public Works Department, said that the discussions were far from academic. He did not agree with Coffey but could confirm that he held the views expressed to the board. The appeal was dismissed.