Evening Post. THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1912. DEFENDING DEFENCE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 86, 11 April 1912, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1912. DEFENDING DEFENCE.

The organisers of the deputation o£ Wellington citizens which waited upon the Minister of Defence yesterday may be heartily congratulated upon the success of their efforts. The deputation, was large and representative ; ite composition was such as to preclude any suspicion of party bias; and it spoke freely and strongly but without offence. It was certainly time that some counterdemonstration was made to balance the noisy protests that have issued from a small minority, confined for the most part to a single city, against the faithful administration of the Defence Act. The people of New Zealand are more pleased with their scheme of military training than ever now that they see its promise blossoming into performance. How is it, then, that the active pressure brought to bear upon the present Government and its predecessor hue been almost entirely m the wrong direction,? The explanation is to be found in the difference between a grievance and a privilege. The majority fought hard to get the compulsory principle into the Statute Book, bat naturally ceased to struggle when it had attained ite end* The minority woko up to its grievance when the enforcement of the law begau, ,*nd in Christen ureh has succeeded in making fuss enough to scare the politicians The majority must assert itself in defence of the privilege that it worn by hard md enthu*i«*tic work i£ a

numerically insignificant minority is not to succeed in this policy ot intimidation. Yesterday's influential deputation is a welcome sign that the necessary awaken ing has begun. "The Citizens' Defence League," said Mr. W. Fraeer, M.P., 'n introducing tho deputation, "view with alarm the loosening 61 the reins of government, so far as the Defence Act is concerned." They did not want to see tho Act brought into discredit by the failure to punish those who defied the law. The object of the deputation was to put this view before the Minister of Defence, to strengthen his hands iv the administration of the law, and to assure him of the support of an overwhelming majority of his fellow-citizens in the work that he had undertaken. The crux of the question is, of course, in the imprisonment preecribed for the defaulter who, having broken the law, refuses to pay the fine imposed by the Court. Ifc was stated by the Minister of Defence yesterday, as had previously been stated >by several of his colleagues, that Parliament never contemplated the imprisonment of defaulters. It is quite true that the only .penalty expi'essly provided by the Defenoe Act is a" fine, and ■that the alternative of imprisonment in the event of non-payment of the fine exists By virtu© of the general procedure laid down by another Act. Parliament (may not have given much thought to the question of imprisonment, but it astsuredly did not intend contumacious defaulters to get off scot free, and that is the only alternative under the law as it sta-nde, except for the disfranchiseiment and "the disqualification ■ for the Public Service, which, as was properly urged by the deputation, may not weigh .very heavily with a youth of eighteen. ■As 60,000 boys and young men have registered under the Act, and only some twenty have elected to go to gaol, Parliament's expectation that there would not be much deliberate defiance of the law has certainly been realised. But how much defiance would there have ■been if there had been no gaol in the background? or if there had even been ground for hoping that the partial suspension of the law which the exigencies of politics have secured for the favoured City of Christchurch would be extended to other districts? However, the point made by the deputation was not that imprisonment must be retained on the Statute Book as the sola alternative to a fine, but that while it,is there it must ,be faithfully enforced by the Executive, and that its removal, even by the LegisJature, should not be tolerated until some equally leffectivo deterrent had been substituted. Some interesting *ugg«stions for tho amendment of the law were made by Mr. A. R. Atkinson, and the Minister prvmised to take them into consideration, without indicating his own ideas on the subject. The immediate ipoint is the enforcement of the law as it stands, and on this Mr. Myers spoke as clearly as circumstances allowed and with a good deal more force than was generally expected. The substance and the tone of the Minister's Teply were enough to confirm our previous impression that there would have been no uneasiness about tlie administration of the Defence Act if he had been given a free hand. His 'expression of surprise at the uneasiness to -which the deputation testified was in itself surprising, considering the treatment given to the last batch of Christchurch defaulters only a week previously. What effect could that treatment have but that of encouraging the law-breakers and disheartening the law-abiding majority? We can only seek for a reconciliation between the theory of the Defence/ Minister and his practice in a divided Cabinet. The result, however, is not the complete capitulation to the forces of lawlessness that had been feared. The prosecutions will continue 1 , and offenders who refuse to pay their fines will not, as we suggested, go scot free. They will go to gaol, with the certainty that they musteervo part of their term and the possibility that the Cabinet may remit part of it. The position is highly unsatisfactory, but it is infinitely preferable to the consequence which we had dreaded — viz., the almost automatic release of offenders who defied the law to the last. Tho most impressive part of the Minister's speech yesterday, and that which bore the most indubitable marks of sincerity, was the simple but moving peroration in which he referred to the Imperial aspect ot the matter. He realises that the Empire is closely watching the working of New Zealand's experiment, and that his responsibility is proportionately enlarged. The provision that New ZjSaland is making for her own safety may become an example for the guidance of the Empire at large. Inspired by this sense of responsibility, Mr. Myers, hopes to be able to report before long fco the Home authorities that New Zealand's defence scheme has passed the experimental stage and become an unI qualified success. If we could believe the rest of the Cabinet to be inspired in th© same way, all misgivings as to the success of the scheme would be at aa end.