THE MARRIED MEN

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 42, 18 February 1918, Page 8

THE MARRIED MEN

TO ME EDITOR.

_ Sir, —Your reply in Thursday evening's Post to the supporters of "Boy Scout's" letter re the delay in sending the married men to the front is right : outside the question. You well know v that everyone realises the minimum military ags which has been fixed. What we are al] asking is this-: After the single men carrying through a bitter task for three and a-half years—-a task equally, or more, incumbent upon tho married men—why does the Government adopt the unfair expedient of the "coming cf age" trap? Why not actually despatch the marned men? We know as well -as,-. you do that the rule of the Act. is that ■'. these youths must serve at twenty., . Surely, in all J conscience, it is .unfair-, that the single man (light in worldly goods) should have fought for 1 three^ and a-half : years to save the "better-.0ff",:.. married fraternity from risking their" skins (and businesses, etc,.). Have not:, the single men been the sacrifice for.the.i. married long enough? Why should not the employers do their share? Why do not some of.the Victoria-street and Jer-vois-quay business proprietors take their share in: the .war? Yes, and some of tho uprcountry produce people, who stay at home piling/up extra war profits on wool and other staple exports ?'._ , In the name of patriotism, in equity as men one to another, in the sight.of the true Judge, our' Maker, these married men, amongst 'whom are the "better off," in many cases wealthy, have equal, and perhaps greater, right to fight for their country—and for the stakes; they ■! hold there. The single man has no slake, as a rule. Why should the youths be penalised before they, have . had a chance to'learn a career for after life— what will they know for a livelihood if they • return ?, And you also speak, of the production of "fit" men- from Cl Camp. .Why, considerably over five hundred have been rejected after being . tested in this camp—forced from their ; homes and their careers _ spoilt. . You say "three drafts of. married men have been called." Yes, "called," For.how long ahead? When, oh when, are they going? Of course, the Act should from the start have conscripted equal numbers of both married and single men simultaneously. But why dodge the issue now?—l am, etc., ■ ■..'.■ PROFITS OR LIVES.

.' TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I always considered your paper the most fair-minded of any published in Wellington, but since you have taken to apologising: for the Second Division and seem to dislike publishing' the lettors you have received called forth by "Boy Scout's" letter, one hardly knows what to', think. Are you in tlie Government's confidence? At least you must have come to the conclusion that a great number of people in New Zealand have reached : that this Government is pander- .: i-ng to the' married men. If as you; j state it is a fact that the Second Dm- ; sion are ready and anxious to go _ and ] keep their promises made to the single men, why is it the numbers of reinforce-, ments have been reduced and tne date of embarkation postponed. It is not j good enough to say less casualties, when all the world knows we'have reached the crucial stage in the struggle, and that now if ever is the time 1 for men who are willing 1 "to do their bit" to come forward and not shelter behind the skirts of women. If the married men of Belgium and France, not to mention Britain, had done this, how would New Zealand be fairing to-day; we should have had a regiment or two of Germans, i and no doubt they would have acted hero in the same manner as they'have in the countries they have occupied, i I suppose the present ofiice holders are I I catering for jobs by holding back the I married men, hut they 'shoould not forI get that the lads of 19 and 20 to-day lave the voters..of to-morrow, and al- ! though the electors' memories are proI verb.ially short, the opposition office seekers,' although apparently in accord now, willl like. all politicians throw mud when the next election is being fought. I am, etc., WIN THE WAR. 16th February. ' j [The above letters require no further j comment than to state that The Post, as j a. matter of justice, has pointed out thit j members of the Second Divisioa have displayed their willingness to go in their turn as: fixed by Parliament.' Whenever i and in whatever numbers they are required. Members of the Second Divsion are in no way responsible for the reduction in. the reinforcement quotas, which has been officially stated has bee» fixed by the War Office.—Ed J '' ' :