“MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG"

Evening Star, Issue 19221, 12 April 1926, Page 2

“ MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG"

UNIVERSITY MEN IN DEBATE BRITISH SPEAKERS TAKE PART Many people went to Burns Hall on Saturday night to hea.r the debate on the subject “My Country, Right or Wrong,” contested by representatives of tho Empire debating team now touring the dominion and representatives of tho Otago University Club. The debate was listened to with keen interest. Some students at tho rear of the hall were up to mischief, and interjections were fairly frequent, but they did not disturb the equilibrium of the speakers.

The debaters were;— Affirmative.—Messrs H. E. Barrowclough (Otago), A. H. E. Molson (University of Oxford), and A. J. C. Campbell (Otago). Negative.—Messrs T. P. Macdonald (University of Edinburgh), W. D. Taylor (Otago), and Paul Reed (King’s College, London). The Chairman (the Hon. C. E. Stntham, M.P.) said there was no occasion for him to welcome the visitors from overseas. That had already been done, and ho was of opinion that welcomes to visitors were very much overdone. He said there was no occasion to ask for a fair hearing for the speakers—a Dunedin audience was always prepared to give that. The opening speakers and the last speakers on the negative side would bo allowed fifteen minutes each in which to state their case, and tho others would bo allowed ten minutes each, the leader on the affirmative side would he allowed ten minutes for reply. At the conclusion there would be no judging, and no vote would he taken.

Mr Barrowclough opened for the affirmative. Ho said that when ho was approached with regard to taking part in the debate, and the subject was mentioned, ho stipulated that ho should he allowed to speak on tho affirmative side. Ho did so because that was a principle which he had always stood for. As a matter of fact, it had been a puzzle to him that anyone could be found to espouse the negative. In this connection he wished to make it clear that ho was quite sincere and whole-hearted in his espousal of tho cause. He wished to show what precisely was the sentiment of that expression, “ My country, right_ or wrong.” Perhaps some of those .silvertongued orators from abroad would put it in a different way. ("Hear, hear,” and laughter.) Ho was told that the expression was first used by an American naval officer named Decatur, alter whom a war vessel which recently visited our port had been named. Tho expression came into use _ in Now Zealand when the Turkish crisis arose, and the words were first used by Mr T. M. Wilford,_ who was _ then Loader of the Opposition. A crisis hao arisen over Turkish affairs, and J Ae New Zealand Government was considering tho question as to what attitude, it would adopt. Great Britain had taken New' Zealand and the other dominions into her confidence, and she wished particularly to know whether Now Zealand would support her. The matter was discussed in tho Now Zealand Parliament, and Air AVillnrd used these words. He could not say that he was always prepared to support Air Wilford"in everything ho did, hut he was prepared to back him up in that. He (tho speaker) was too much of an Irishman to agree with everything a man said. (Laughter.) He wished it clearly to he understood that once a decision, alter careful consideration, had been readied by a Government on a question of international policy, ho as a individual „as prepared to stand by it. “ Once that decision has been reached.” said the speaker, “it is then no affair of mine—my country, right or wrong.” He contended that they had to accept the policy of those to whom they looked as leaders. Unless they did that a country could not stand. He know that he should be called unmoral, and perhaps immoral, for tho -sentiments ho had expressed, but that did not concern him. So long ns _a country sent men to represent it in the councils of the Empire, and they did it properly, then that country must ho prepared to stand by the decisions readied. He would say: “ What are you and I that wo should stand up and say whether our country is right or wrong?” There were cries of “ Scots wha hao ” when Air Aiacdonald, whose nationality was unmistakable, rose to present the negative sido of the debate. He thanked the audience for tho kindly wany in which they had been received. It had been a particular pleasure to one like himself, who came from the Edinburgh of the North, to pay a visit to the Edinburgh of the South, He understood they had a Water ol Leith in this city of the south. (Laughter.) In Scotland they had a Water of Leith, too. The names of tho streets here were similar to those in his native city. Coming to the subject of tho debate, he did not think his opponent was very complimentary to them when he said, “ neither you nor I know anything.” (Laughter and applause.) He (tho speaker) could not say that, because he knew he was addressing tho most intelligent audience in Now Zealand. (Laughter and applause). He could understand the adoption of tho sentiment my country, right or wrong, if a brutal attack had been made on that country, but not otherwise. The relationship between the individual and the State was a problem which ucl attracted all the great minds of the past, and it was attracting the great minds of to-day. (Laughter.) It had always been held that a guiding principle should be to gain the full sum of human happiness, but if an individual was going to support the principle of “ Aly country, right or wrong ” ho was not adhering to that guiding principle. Tho tendency of to-day had been for men and women to realise that there was something greater than tho State to which they belonged, and if individuals supported a policy on which their lenders had wrongly determined they were not doing what was right, llis opponent had said that the policy of tho leaders might be determined by the wishes of tho State. Tho man returned to Parliament might have been given a mandate to act; hut once a Government was formed the individuals had no further control. Especially so was that the case when it it was realised how much the Press was controlled by the Government which happened to bo in office. Ho realised that the old Greek idea was to support your country whether it was right or wrong; but conditions had changed since them. If one’s country was right the individuals were justified in supporting it, but not otherwise. It was sometimes difficult for an individual to understand which was his country. He might have been horn in Germany of Italian parents, and emigrated to tho United States, and was on a temporary visit to Now Zealand. (Laughter.) They might encounter the same difficulties as tho Scotchman encountered who was horn in London, so as to save his train fare south. (Laughter.) It was, ho said, a very fine thing to support your country when yon knew that your country was supporting a righteous caute, but not otherwise. There were people who talked blihly of patriotism, but Gere there were many definitions of patriotism, which were not flattering to his opponents. Dr Johnson had described it as the last refuge of a scoundrel. His opponent had suggested that ho might call him unmoral or immoral. He, however, had no hesitation in flinging in bis

teeth the words of Dr Johnson. He wished his hearers to remember that the majority was not always right. This was demonstrated at the time of the union between England and Scotland; nevertheless, great benefits bad resulted from that union. It had been of advantage to Scotchmen, vid the advantage to the English was that they had been better governed _ than they had been prior to the union. (Loud laughter and applause.) Mr Molson said they _ could jiot allow every individual to judge for himself whether ho was right or wrong. There was always a minority, and that minority must submit to the majority. A man might bo found who held very pronounced views on a subject, and who conscientiously believed that be was right, but it was probable that ho could not find a majority to share his views. There was a certain woman, and the previous speaker reminded him of her—(loud laughter)—who said that for a long time she had realised that there were only two people who had the right to bo saved, and those two people were the minister and herself, and lately she had had grave doubts about the minister. (Laughter.) It was not part of a soldier’s duty to consider the politics of a war. If a man were to have the right to say his country was wrong, it would surely be his duty to sally forth and put bombs under railway bridges and gasworks, for example, and he, the speaker, would oven go further and say that he should set out and assist in enlisting an irregular body of troops. He believed that if a man were loyal to himself and loyal to those ho worked with and those around him ho could not ho disloyal to any man. (Applause.) Mr Taylor said it was a peculiar thing that the words which formed the subject of the debate should have originated in America. Probably America was wrong in Georgian times. A flamboyant and flag-waving policy was not patriotism. Their opponents would have them believe' that a country must blindly accept the policy of tfio Government and follow it into a war which might lead to its extermination. The speaker argued that if the sentiment under discussion was right and proper, then it followed that it was right to do wrong, a which was untenable and absurd. Me were steadily moving forward to internationalism, and this doctrine was a hindrance if blindly accepted. “My country, right or wrong,” was an impossible one to the fair-minded man. _ He would support his country in the right, but would withhold that support il she were in the wrong. The same code of morality applied to nations and citizens as to individuals. If this maxim wore followed, then personal morality died, and no code of morality was then extant at the call to arms.

Mr Campbell said, the people could not adopt a policy such as Socialists and those on the other side of the house wore advocating, in order_ to achieve the result aimed at a united front was necessary. It was only by presenting a united front that the League of Nations could prevent war. it was only by maintaining a united front that the break-up of the British Empire would bo preventcd. Once a country bad embarked on a war it was for those in that country to seo the trouble through to the end. (Applause.) Mr Hood said that it was necessary to look beyond one’s own country. AVe should train ourselves to think internationally. This could not bo done by adhering to the sentiment, “ My country, right or wrong.” -They might as well say “ Sly family, right or wrong.” The sentiments, however, had some good points; it was not all bad. _ It was quite incompatible with the idea of a democracy that every man should say in advance, ‘‘ My country, right or wrong.” That would undermine the very principles of democracy, and interest in the affairs of the country must inevitably diminish. They were looking forward now to a kind of international Government, and how could that bo reached it people, right or wrong, were led by warmongers, liberticides, and all the masters of mischief from Cain to the Kaiser? Air Barrowclough, in reply, said that he wished to make it clear that it was the duty of the individual to follow his country once a decision had been reached on a question of policy. He for one would bo prepared to fight for it to the last ditch if necessary, but he reserved to himself the right to say at the conclusion to those responsible for the trouble: “Give us an account of your stewardship,” and if it wore shown that the leaders were wrong they should be punished, if necessary, by death, and lie for one would not hesitate to inflict the punishment himself. In the matter of international crisis there was frequently not time to investigate, and the individual had La be guided by the loaders. He considered that the British Empire was the most righteous of nations. Ho was astonished at the epithets which had been hurled at him because of bis upholding 'patriotism. Dr Johnson might have said that to bo a patriot was to bo a scoundrel. If so ; then his earnest wish was that he might live and die a scoundrel. (Loud applause.) Sir T. K. Sidey, SI.P. (Chancellor of the Otago University), proposed a hearty vote of thanks to the speakers, and this was carried by acclamation. Sir Sfacdonald returned thanks, and said that they would never forget the kindness of the Dunedin people during their stay in tins city. Ho said that after visiting the other three centres they would leave for Australia, and would sail from Fremantle for Horae about the beginning of June. At the request of the chairman the National Anthem was then sung.