MILITARY TRAINING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15862, 27 February 1912, Page 9

MILITARY TRAINING.

TO lIIE EDITOR. Sir, —It is a new experience to a woman to argue with one who is ; assured of the last word, hut I thank you that you have still left me the comfort of being unconvinced. I have sons and also 'brothers, who are quite normal, and it was from watching and even joining in their play that I concluded that the “ soldiering instincts ” of tho race are quite keen enough not to require to ho cherished by a compulsory training scheme. In conclusion will you allow me to thank “ A.P.F.” for his compliment, which I should have valued even more over his own name. Every student of history, knows that from the time of Noah onwards the initiators of all reforms have been called cranks and faddists by the less advanced of' their fellow-countrymen. In tho dim glorious past even the editor of tho “Lyttelton Times” has been referred to in some such terms. — I am, etc., „ SARAH S. PAGE. (AVe shall allow our correspondent the last word.—Ed. “ L.T.”) TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —It is perfectly easy to sneer at those who oppose what is, or appears to be, popular. It requires no courage, knowledge or skill of any kind to do so; hence, doubtless, “A.P.F.’s” letter. The suggestion that the country would be well rid of those who oppose compulsory military training is not original, nor is it true; but perhaps, if the 11,01)0 anti-militarists who are in Christchurch left us. tho noble-minded, large-hearted “ A.P.F.” would be happy. Let me quote from ono who is doing great work for the enlightenment of the world—maybe not so good an authority as “A.P.F.,” but still I suppose he will do. Professor Starr-Tordan says: “ While not all agitators are sane and not all heretics right-minded, yet no nation can snare from its numbers those men who’think for themselves and those who act for themselves. It cannot afford to drive away or destroy those who arc filled with religious zeal, nor those whoso religious zeal takes a form not' approved by tradition nor by consent of the masses. All movements towards social and Religious reform are signs of individual initiative and individual force. The country which stamp-s out individuality will soon live in the mass alone.”—l am, etc,, F. M’OULLOUGH.

TO THE EDITOIv. Sir, —Your correspondent “A.P.F.” can hardly understand the position when he suggests that all those who object to compulsory military training should leave the dominion. Should such a thing happen, it would mean that a large proportion of the workers with tlieTr families would £O. Only last waok an important meeting was held in Wel-lington,-when tho statement was made by a leading trade union official that practically all the unions 6f the dominion were against compulsory training. It would, therefore,, appear that it might l>e cheaper and in other ways more convenient if “ A.P.F.” and the other militarists of his persuasion took their‘leave. Does your correspondent know what tho Act involves? If he has not studied it, he is in no position to give a proper judgment. Does he know the Act empowers the military authorities, without consulting Parliament, to send a body of our sons to any part of tho world to fight Britain’s enemies? Have we not here prided ourselves on our democracy, and can we then submit to such a. law? No, and again no. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at the Imperial Conference, said the people of Canada were

Canadians first., and he would not consent to assist in any Imperial war unless the Canadians had agreed through their Parliament to do so. . Conscription is the. antithesis of democracy, and just as soon as the people here know what the new Act involves, then without' delay they will have it removed from the Statute Book.—l am, etc., W. ENSOM. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Under tho system of compulsory military training brought into force by our Defence Act one would think there was no necessity for an oath of allegiance. Soeing that all male persons of certain ages are liable to service surely the oath is supererogatory..- It seems to be a weekly occurrence now to have batches of boys be-' fore tho. Court for refusing to take the oath. Fines and gaoling are the order of the day. Newspaper columns are headed, “Youthful Anti-militarists before the Court,” “Youths fined for refusing to take the oath,” “More youths,” etc., and so on. Clause 11. of the Defence Act reads:—" Every officer on receiving his commission and every man on his enrolment in the defence forces or as soon afterwards as may be shall take the following oatli of _ allegiance before a Justice or a prescribed officer:- ‘I, A. 8.. do sincerely promise and swoar that T will be faithful and hear true allegiance to our Sovereign Lord the King, and that I will faithfully servo in the permanent force (or Territorial force or Militia as the case may he) until lawfully discharged.” No man enrols. Or are men hoys of 16, 17, IS. 19 or 20 years? Could you kindly tell us who are men? Do we hope to fool the hoys? We give them kliaki uniforms, guns and bayonets and tell them they are men, just as the fablo has it the terriers fooled the ringleaders of the revolting rats: —

Wo clip their ears And dock their tails And tell them they are terriers. —I am, etc., ROSE 0. ATKINSON,

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—You and all your correspondents who favour the Defence Act appear to be under the impression that we anti-compulsory militarists are opposed to drill or physical training, which is tho only excuse you are able to trot out in defence of this accursed Act, which is ridiculous, as everyone knows that exercises and training are beneficial to everyone. What I would like to impress upon you and your correspondents is that it is the compulsory clause we kick against. Where is tho credit or glory in defending your country? It is either defend or gaol. Tho British flag always stood for freedom and liberty. The New Zealand flag stands now for conscription, thereby accusing us as a nation of shirkers, which is not true, as the volunteers fat’ the Boer War proved, and Lord Roberts spoke most favourably of their ability as defenders. You liken the compulsory training to the railway sendee or other civil service. One von are driven and compelled to serve in; the other you are free to enter and your services are paid for. two entirely different conditions. This compulsory training is like the Californian thistle. They are two curses—one to the land, the other to the nation. Neither is a curse while in the embryo state, but the more they grow the greater menace they become. Reeding your articles and our Magistrate’s remarks reminds me of the spider and the oy—get the lads into the mesh and there is no way out. 1 am ready any time to volunteer, but compulsion never.—l am, etc., H.W.R. (We recommend our correspondent to volunteer and leave other people to he compelled.—Ed. “L.T.”) TO THE EDITOR. Sir,- —We are hearing a great deal of nonsense talked about military training by tho “conscientious” objectors, and, as the mother of three sons who have; done and are now doing their share 7 willingly towards preparation for tho defence of our beloved country, I would like to remind these “ohiecto-rs” that, if they had their way, "New Zealand would inevitably become the prey of one oi' other of these nations for whom it would afford a valuable base of operations. And what respect do these objectors imagine would then be paid to their conscientious scruples? Our young colonials have their faults, no doubt, but one is loth to believe cowardice one of them. Their hanging back is surely due to the mistaken advice of others who should know much better. _ Discipline is greatly needed in tins fair land of ours, and military training will do much.good if it only teaches some of these slouchers one sees shambling along our streets how to carry themselves like men.—l am, etc., A MOTHER OF THREE SONS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—lt struck many of your readers as most unwarranted thst you should stigmatise the lads who -jsSuse to submit to compulsory iiiiL-."M W

showing “ dislike lor self-sacrifice ancl . a lack of civic sense.” I do not think A police court appearances, fines, aiid, [ last but not least, editorial and niagisI terial sarcasm are lightly faced. There is a deeper motive power in the hearts of these inarticulate protesters, infants in tho eyes ol the law, too young to vote, hut not too" young to lie expected to satisly an awe-inspiring magistrate before a court as to their sincerity" and the basis of their theology. The spirit which actuates many, if. not all of them, is clearly that to which we OT’p our civil and religious liberties—spirit which refuses to bow to a ... n . ia king unjust demands upon tho individual conscience. To some of us it seems that these iads whom you brand as deficient, in altruism and civics are outposts of tlie gathering force of those who are making war o:i uar, and that tho verdict of the future will reverse your pronouncement of the hour. You have made tho usual reference to the “enormous benefit’' cl tho physical training given under the new scheme and ignore the fact that those who need it most, nnmelv, those below normal standard, will he deprived of it. And as for discipline, surely that which could he provided by an efficient and extended educational system should be incomparably better seeing that this is a discipline of body* mind and. heart, whereas that of tlia r-olclier is more blind obedience. Again;it is with a singular disregard of tho laws'of psychology that ’-on draw an analogy between - tho “wild Indian ' games of children irom seven to twelve years of age and the scientific preparation for war of much older youths by military training, whilst your statement that the system doss not imbuo the soldier with a desire for slaughter is but a dangerous half-truth. ’'Ths military caste lias always constituted the greatest menace to oeace.—l am, etc.,

ELLEN VICKERS HOWELL,