'NOTHING TO DEFEND'

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 86, 11 April 1912, Page 8

'NOTHING TO DEFEND'

7 MILITARY TRAINING. A6AINST COMPULSION. PEACE SOCIETY AND LABOUR. DEPUTATION TO MINISTER OF DEFENCE. The. compulsory provisions in. the Defence Act were strongly condemned by a deputation -which waited on the M_in-, ister 'of ' Defence (Hon. A. M.' Myers) to-day, and discussed the question with him for two hours. The deputation -was introduced by Mr. J. Robertson^ M:P., who said it represented a very" large body of public opinion, on the subject of military training. It represented the Federation of Labour, the Drivers' Federation of New Zealand, the North Canterbury Labour Representation Committee, the Society of Friends, the Peace Council of New Zealand, the Dunedin. Labour Party, the New Zealand Socialist Party, and the Wellington Anti-Militarist League. The body of people opposed to compulsory military training, he said, wa3 much larger than was generally supposed, and in his electorate he was surprised at its 'extent. He believed that if publio opinion could be accurately 'gauged, the result would be surprising. The Press of the country had practically conspired to represent this system as. being acceptable to the people, and had taken "action in a way' that was calculated to v'bice it to the people of the country. The Minister and other public men were apt to be misled as to the actual way in which the Act was viewed by the people as a whole. Mr. Hunter, representing the Drivers' Federation, said the federation had passed a resolution against the system of compulsion with only two dissentients. PUNISHMENT— WAS IT A COWARDLY ACT. Mr. Hickey (Federation of. Labour) said the system had been frequently condemned by that organisation, after full discussion and serious deliberation.* From hia own personal observation in New Zealand, he could say that the opposition to the system was far greater than ,ono" would suppose from reading the papers. They considered the Government'did a, cowardly act in punishing boys for" carrying" out the wishes of their parents, and it seemed also that' it would not bo long before there was .a big number of people black-list'edbe-. cause they did not see eye to eye vvith the Government. In the mining districts the youths were determined to cease work if they w-ere punished for their objection to comply with the law, and so far the Act had not been put into operation in those districts. Thousands of workers felt very strongly in this matter, and would do all they could to get the Act repealed. AN IMPLACABLE OPPONENT OF THE ACT. Mr. P. J. O'Regan, also representing the Federation of Labour, protested against the Act, to which ho said he was 'implacably and irrevocably opposed. He believed ho was expressing tho opinion of a large body of people who were opposed to the Act, and whose views did not appear in the jress— the press which was being made a cat's-paw of by the National Service League. He urged that the State had no right to interfere with a man who did no wrong. He admitted there was a largo section of the community in favour of the Act, but, in spite of that, the minority had their opinions, and would express theml In England there was a law of compulsion, but the authorities dared not enforce it. Conscientious objection to vaccination was allowed, and they claimed the same exemption. His voice, he eaid, carried very far with working men in Now Zealand, and he should use his constitutional righta In opposing the Act. FEELING IN CANTERBURY. Mr. Enson, representing the National Peace Society at Christchurch, said that that body had had registered the names of 14,000 people who were opposed to the Act. _ In one district in Canterbury, totf, practically the whole of the male electors had voluntarily signed a protest against the Act. Ttiey felt that the Act was entirely opposed to the advancing spirit of the age. In England the Labour Party was almost unanimously against anything in the shape of conscription, and, further, he declared that the people of New Zealand had no knowledge whatever before the Act was passed of the, kind of thing that was being forced' upon them. Miss Brown, of the Society of Friends, said they had always been a la w-a biding society except when they thought the lav/ conflicted with a higher law. The conscience clause in the Act did not give them satisfaction. It required ambulance work in place of service, Jbut it \ras under military rule' and they were opposed to all forms of militarism. ANTAGONISM TO MILITARISM. Mr. Maekie, representing the National Peace Council, said that all the reports in the newspapers were exaggerated, and gave no idea of the state of affaire. There was a body of young men on the West Coast who had pledged themselves against the Act, and no prosecutions had followed. Why? Because, it seemed, the Government was afraid to disclose the actual condition of affairs. Why, he also asked, should boys be only prosecuted at Christchurch and not at other places? They demanded that if the Act was going to he enforced it should be enforced everywhere without discrimination. The Peace Council had not advised boys to break the law. Some of its members might have- spoken in favour of passive resistance. They ttood in antagonism to militarism, and ihi'v regarded the Aot su undemocratic." Sir Joseph Ward had sakl thau the Act would never be tolerated, and it never would bo tolerated. The principle of the Act was- the principle of conscriotion, and they asked for the rewal of the* compulsory clauses. Nothing less than that would satisfy them. To fane a buy for obeying his parents was an iniquity, and they could uot possibly endure' it. IS THE ACT UNPOPULAR? Professor Mills said ha had travelled much in New Zealand for nearly a year, and met many people, inustly connected vvith Labour, and he had only met one man who defended the compulsory provisions of tho Act. He did not believe that any member of the Ministry or any citizen wuuld get up and say that he believed that n boy, possibly acting under tin* advice of his parents, should have his thumb prints taken and put on the criminal record* ami disfranchised for life for doing the best lip could under the cimimtjtuiiL'eti. The only possible chance of trouble in New Zealand was iv connection with industrial dispuLeu, and there wa« an opinion thct ti>eie w«n a, danger of the tioops being used iv connection with tlioee du>piu>f>. So long as that conviction leinaincd opposition to the measure would not tend to decrease but to increase. Th« measure was not popular, it was unpopular, and he- would tell tbe Minister bow to put it to the test. Let him declare that it wan the intention of hie Deparaonent at the carlkbt puchUAe moment to tec thai the yqlilicid rights

that had been forfeited under the Act should bo restored, and that all records of thumb prints should be dcstioyed. Let him do that, and it would be the most popular Act that -would be possible for ,-him to undertake. That would test absolutely the position of ihe delegation that the measure did not lopresent the majority of the people in New Zealand. Mr. Freeman, representing tho Korhiist Party, said they held that tho workers in New Zealand had practically nothing to fight for. At tho present time, too, there was a remit going out I to every country laying it down that in the case of the outbieak of an international war the workers of every country shall immediately lay down their took. Mr. Jordan (Wanganui Labour Party) said that if the country put workers m ' such a position that they had something to defend all of them would be ready, but that waft not the case at the present timo. ' Mr. M'Carthy (Dunedin Labour Party) urged that if the object of the Act was physical training they also required to train the girls. . THE LAW— AND CONSEQUENCES. Mr. 3. M'Cullough (Christchurch) said he recognised that there were two sides to every question, but as the father of a boy who had been branded as a criminal, herded with prostitutes and drunken women on the way to prison, it wa« "difficult to be calm and collected. This agitation, he went on to say, was not confined to Christchurch. "it appeared to be so because of the action taken _ by the Canter bury College- authorities in dismissing- a very large elasa of students and intimating to them that they should go to a meeting that was convened by the P.eac«, Council, with a view to showing that there was no public opinion at the back of the agitation. They had heard that Mr. Myers was going to administer . the Act. "Good luck to you," .he commented, "administer it. 1 urge you as Minister of Defence to put this Act into operation. Do your duty. See thpt the law is administered, and you: will see the consequences." '* j Mr. Fariand (Wellington- Waterside Workers) said the view of the waterside workers was that they had nothing to protect. Besides, the proper thing to do was to provide maritime defence; but they were not going to allow their sons to be used to protect the money of the capitalists, especially during the* time of industrial disturbance.