ENEMIES OVER CONSCRIPTION

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 67, 17 September 1917, Page 10

ENEMIES OVER CONSCRIPTION

(FROM OUR OWN COIUIESPONDENI.)

SYDNEY,-4th September.

Here is a story, told the other day in a Melbourne Police. Court, which is typical of'the intense bitterness which the conscription referendum, of last October aroused, among all sections of the Australian public.'..-,' : >.

Philip Walsh . and David Marriage were neighbours, /in Mount Pleasantgrove, Armidale, arid ' their relationship was as cordial as the name of their street. . Then came, the conscription issue. Walsh advocated compulsory service; Marriage stoutly opposed it. Their arguments : were furious and interminable. . Each" man expressed confidence in the result of the vote. When the result of the .referendum was published, Marriage was overjoyed, and would forego no atom of his triumph over the hated Walsh. He went out in front of Walsh's house, whopped, exultantly, and flung his newspaper on to Walsh a .verandah. . Walsh was. not crushed^ He barked defiance at Marriage, and found consolation, in a loud and ostentatious way, in directing the attention of the resentful Marriage to. the Victorian figures, and the small Commonwealth majority against conscription. Then Walsh's dog died of poison. Marriage was under a black cloud of suspicion therearient, and he added, nothing to the surging hatred of Walsh, when, as the animal was being buried, he leaned over the fence and jeered. Each following the lead of father, the two families displayed towards each other an enmity that was immeasurable and implacable: Then the climax came. Walsh called formally, but belligerently, upon Marriage, and requested hint to stop the "unbearable din" going on in his house, ae. his (Walsh's) children could not sleep. The outraged Marriage ordered him off the premises. Walsh was not conciliatory, and Marriage also did not appear averse to a fight. The fight occurred, promptly. The confidence of Walsh was not unjustified, but Marriage was vigorously assisted by his wife and his . sister-in-law: The sequel was the appearance of both parties before a Magistrate. Each accused the other, of assault,: and Marriage, in addition, claimed £10 in respect of a lost; tooth. Walsh,; being only human, could not, be expected to disclaim responsibility, for the tooth,; and that fact may be counted against him, for he was fined 10s and ordered to pay 20s damages for the tooth.