R.S.A. AND POLITICS.

Evening Star, Issue 22229, 6 January 1936, Page 8

R.S.A. AND POLITICS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—-In reply to the query by Mr M'Manus—whence the inspiration, etc.? —may ,1 state that the motive m raising the issue is a desire to see the ex-soldier receive not only what is legally due to,him, but also that which is morally his right. The powers that be are becoming rather absent minded upon this subject, and with a desire to protect the interests of returned soldiers generally, combined with the unwarranted criticism of an ex-soldier aspirant to political honours, who was alert enough to remind his fellowdiggers of his understanding of their needs, I felt moved —inspired, if Mr M‘Mnnus prefers—to' delve into the merits of this appeal. In previous letters the writer has advanced the value of experience and still retains the opinion that a few more ex-soldier representatives upon local bodies and in Parliament would be of _ immense value to ex-diggers and the citizens ns a whole. I admire the tenacity of your correspondent. Loyalty to party is superlatively strong with him, and suggests part of my complaint—that party bias operates too frequently in opposition to the best interests of ex-soldiers, and should be corrected by direct representation by men who understand, preferably with official R.S.A. backing.—Yours etc., January 4. Digger. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ Sniper’s ” well-written letters prove that there are two sides to every question, and that fact constitutes the strongest reason why the R.S.A. should not bo a political oragnisation, seeing one side only, so it can give fuller recognition of the claims of individuality. The factor that lias led the world from one phase of development to the next is individuality which has liberty of initiative. The civilised world even exists through initiative, and individuality is the method of initiative. Political action would drive the members of the R.S.A. into two. opposing political camps, thus cramping t.he individuality which by the conflict of opinion in one camp 1 is necessary for promoting knowledge. Political parties deny .freedom that conflicts with accepted views. The R.S.A. should be non-political, to give freedom of thought, so the organisation would be able to reflect experience, experiment, and change. This can only be done by an organisation as wide as the State and reflecting all the interests, no matter how they conflict. To such an organisation it matters not what party is in power, its members being free to vote and work for the political parties their economic interests (or as “ Sniper ” says necessity) force theni into. They are, nevertheless, united to secure the legal rights that each individual’s economic interests are entitled to.

“ Sniper ” refers to the treatment the City Council is dealing out to the returned soldier. How soon they forget. On the Honours Board which appears in the vestibule of the Town Hall will be read the name of Durant, who made the supreme sacrifice in the war. Over in France, at Blandly Do Mer, when the enemy was driven back, I saw Durant’s grave. The Germans had placed an inscription which, when translated, read: “ Here lies a brave British officer, a brave British underofficer,”, and then the names, regiment, and numbers. That tribute was the chivalrous expression of one set of brave men to another. T was so affected by it that my remarks at time, written to my wife, were handed by her to your paper for publication, and were deemed worthy of being reprinted elsewhere.

It may be recalled that in the 1913 general strike of miners and transport workers, city councillors called on their engineers to be enrolled as special constables, and that Mr Durant complied with that order. On the other hand,' the under-officer mentioned above was Sergeant Pouncenby, who was one of the striking miners at Karangahake. Thus, in France, in 1917, I saw the common grave of the miner Pouncenby and the special constable Durant. Whatever interests placed them in conflicting camps were united in a common cause when “ the nation called.” Both men, to prevent shells falling on dear ones in New Zealand, claimed that defence meant going abroad to keep the invading enemy back. That unity of purpose was sanctified with their death, and their bravery in facing it received the admiration of the Germans, expressed on the inscription they put up on the cross that marked their grave. They who went over to certain death in blowing up the enemy sap-heads to give the New Zealand tunnellers time successfully to counter-mine never came back; but no medal granted British soldiers could express the gallantry of such a deed as the words on the cross put there by the enemy. It seems that all political parties honour the dead, and if “ Sniper ” is right they regard it as a crime for a living returned soldier to ask for employment. fhe returned soldiers’ crime, it appears, is that they did not die, but that they live and ask for work so

they can feed and clothe their children'. The Army was full of such heroic men as Durant and Pounccnby, and many of them Jived. Is the problem political, or can it be done by reasonable means so as to prevent local bodies from following the precedents of cutting out returned soldiers or their dependents from employment, as some previous bodies did?—l am, etc., J. B. MacManus. January 6.