NINETEEN OR-?

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 40, 16 August 1917, Page 5

NINETEEN OR-?

THE MILITARY AGE

Correspondents aro still much exercised concerning the suggestion that the military age should be reduced. The Post has received a number of additional letters, and we give below a summary of the writers' opinions.

"A Solid Six-Footer says he read with disgust the articles appearing in The Post protesting against the reduction of the military age. "It makes my blood boil," he says, "to think we have so many people in this country who do not seem to know there is a war raging. Did the people of England and Australia squeal.and lack up ssuch a hubbub when they gave their eighteen-year-old sons for the sako of the Empire? And yet here, when the Government makes a proposal to call up our big stalwart lads of nineteen, the parents immediately begin to tighten the apron strings. It is absolute nonsense to say we cannot endure the hadships and mental strain."

"Nineteen," who expresses his willingness to "do his bit when his turn conies, takes an opposite view. He bases his contention on two grounds—(l) That a youth of nineteen is not matured and is "more liable to contract diseases; (2) most of the Second Division men are in übe prime of their life, and some part, if not a- great many of them, have realised the hopes and ambitions of their life, and through the dimness of the future they cannot but help seeing a gradual decline. On the other hand, a. youth's ambitions, hopes, and desires are^ either about to be realised or else ho is putting the finishing touches to them, and in front of him he probably sees a very blossoming and rosy future. Who is it, then, I ask, who stands to lose more by going away to the front, and after the war which in the long run will prove the more expensive to keep, a cripple at, say, 35, or a crippled or nerve-shattered wreck at 20? I am sure it is quite obvious. By this course I do not mean to indicate that this is the view a youth would talco in going away, for he will still hare his hopes before him, but it stands to reason that a great majority of youtius who are sent into the firing line would be unable to stand up to the immense nerve-strain, o.nd the result ere long would be a nervous wreck. Is it desirable, therefore, that they should brsent?"

" A Colonial " is of opinion that "it would bo preferable to call on the elder men, aye even up to 60. than sacrifice all our boys. I will admit that a failnumber of youths may, on medical examination, be found to be sufficiently matured tn undergo training, say, for nine to ten months before going to the front, but allow those that are willing and so advanced to voluntarily enlist, but keep the age for compulsory enlistment as it is. . In conclusion, I say to the Second Division. Be men and go forward, do not ask the boya to fill your place."

" Enfant Trouve " strongly resents the suggestion that New Zealand youths of nineteen are immature. " Lads of nine tpen have," the correspondent say.= "very few responsibilities, and it seem criminal that married men who have wives and children 'to look after shouV be forced to give up their positions whei there is such a lot of willing and stron;lads in the country who are ready to go into camp at the shortest notice."

An Englishwoman puts forward this view:—"One would think, to read all the correspondence, re soldiers of nineteen, that it is a now prnposal for them to leave New Zealand at that age. Enquiries would show, that every transoort has taken boys of eighteen to twenty years of ag«. There is no need for conscription in their case; and surely the Government, if 1 it ha-s any sense a>t all. can leave the boys of the above ages their privilege of voluntary enlistment. A son of my own, went two yearn Ago at fche age of 19-£ years; and at least ninp have gone from our township during the past three years bdtween the ages of 18 and 19^ yiars. They huve not come back 'sick' either; very few of the boys have spent any time in hospital, except for wounds received; some have, I grieve to state, made the supreme sacrifice, all honour to them! We mothers do not give them, they just go; and any mother worthy of the name would not presume to inlterfere, and shame her son's manhood, by trying to keep him from doing- his duty. It is for us to do our part here by -\endiug Mio things to make the lives of our boys as bearable as possible under the trying and awful work they have to do. Bravo! 'Immnitured Stripling.' you are one of the right sort; but 1 say, let the Government conscript tho men if they please; but leave those under' 21 to volunteer. It will be found, in most cases, ithe difficulty is to keep them back, npt to make them go. Numbers of married men, having left little children, are already fighting. If the Second Division do not want to see the boys sent to the front let them hurry up to go, so there will li? no need of 'young soldiers,' whose lives are more valuable to New Zealand than many of those who are older. Mothers are not allowed to go."

"Let Them Go" considers "the only alternative to sending the boys of nine,teen is to send the married men, and then the Government will be in the soup properly. The cries of the mothers of nineteen-year-olds will be a mere triflecompared to the uproar . created by the wives and children of the married men, unless separation allowances are increased very considerably. But there, I am getting back to the old, old, subject, i.e., where is the money coming from, afterwards, to fulfil these obligations? It would be much better to take the nine-teen-year-olds, and put oft" the fatal day for three or four months, by which time —who knows—the war may be over."