MR. O'REGAN'S "IMPRESSMENT."

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 108, 7 May 1912, Page 6

MR. O'REGAN'S "IMPRESSMENT."

Mr. O'Regan's controversial methods, as set out in a letter in to-day's Post, are very engaging. He has discovered that in our article referring to the tactics of the anti-militarists we wrote in anger, and yet he ie not calm enough himself to confute our arguments or even to understand • them. He says that he has yet to learn that "any responsibility should be placed on men whose writings were quoted without their knowledge." We made no assumption to the contrary, but may say now that the responsibility for what is correctly quoted cannot, in our opinion, be evaded by ignorance of the purpose for which the quotatiou is made. All we said in the artiole to which Mr. O'Regan objects was that "we trust that these gentlemen are proud of the use to which their arguments are being put." It seems a fair inference from our correspondent's tone that he is not proud of it, though ho may be too proud to say so. We referred to certain statementa 'in the English pamphlet — statements which we quoted with precision and from the rebponsibility for which we expressly excluded Mr. O'Regan and the other New Zealanders— as "hysterical aud mendacious Tubbish." His answer is that some of the statements that he has himself made on the subject are correct — a rejoinder which even if it is true can hardly be called conclusive or even relevant. "Will you deny the accuracy of my statement that every male person in this country is liable to be impressed between the ages of fourteen and twentyfive?" asks civr correspondent. We should certainly have been bold enough to challenge this statement if it had been before us>, but what we found attributed to Mr. O'llegan in the pamphlet was that "every male inhabitant of New Zealand not exempted . , is liable to compulsory training from the uge of 12 to 30 yeurs." Both as to the age limits and as to the liability this statement is correct, but that which we are- now invited to challenge is wrong on both points. To talk of compulsory training as "impressment" is grossly inaccurate. "Iruprefcsment" or conscription has not been affectod by the recent legislation. Th% obligation to compulsory service in the militia between ths ages of 17 and 56 existed long before the Defence Act of 1909; compulsory training within narrower limits wa« added by the Act. Mr. O'R«gan's denunciation of "impressment" is, therefore, idlo rhetoric. The fact is that wh<m lie ox* plains the Defence Act a» a lawyer he can do so corr«otly-~in the main. But when us v highly .emotional layman ho btartt* to fiiug his- epithets about ho w just us likely to go wrorjf a*-*ny other