COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15920, 4 May 1912, Page 12

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—One takes pleasure in answer* ing a, gentleman like Mr Hunter, who signs his name to his correspondence and brings arguments to bear upon the subject. The vagueness of most of yoru correspondents is painful. Mr Hunter will not mind my pointing out to him the weakness of his; deductions drawn from the instances of Tripoli, Morocco, etc. He assumes that aggression was assisted by the helplessness of the smaller nations. There are two answers to this. First, supposing his' contention to be correct, no force, either land or sea, could be raised by small States sufficient to pro tect against the great Powers of Eu« rope. It would obviously be senseless for them to attempt any sort of,one or two-power standard, and nothing lesp could suffice. Second, was it really lack of opposing force that assisted in, aggression Y If so, his argument might, be applied to Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Holland or Belgium, none of these States having an armed • force equal to an attack from even a secondclass nation. What is it that actually keeps these little States free from : invasion? Nothing but the honour of. the nations expressed in treaty obligations. And if we to-day could realise that we are not surrounded by a horde of barbarians, but with civilised peoples who have great statesmen at their head we should be much nearer solving tho war problem. Mr Hunter may not know that since 1895 no fewer* than 145 Arbitration Treaties have been signed. I would appeal to him to place all the weight of his influence against running this little island into useless expenditure' and needless friction in the creation oi a compulsory system which when ere* ted will be ineffectual, as is shown bf the Hon Colonel E. B. Seely, D. 5.0., M.P., Under Secretary of State for War at Home. Speaking in the House of Commons, in March this year, he said: "For the purpose of physical development compulsory military training of any sort would be quite useless. ~ . Was it riot a fact that the problem of modern war, now that smokeless powder had revolutionised both tactics , and strategy, was not so much the elimination of the unfit as the elimination ol' the unwilling? ■ He did not think any soldier would deny that proposition. By the system of voluntary service they, eliminated the people who did not like war in the time of peace, all those who seriously believed that they ought not to go to war. that the whole thing was a mistake. If they adopted a national system of compulsory service they would be rushing to disaster, becaus* they would fill the ranks with men totally unconvinced of the necessity of the scheme and they would not fight well. There were only two occasions upon which, under compulsory enlistment, we had engaged in land battles, and every one of these ended in disas* tor." Does this high military authority know what he is talking about?

I am, with you, sorry-that •Mr Hunter should advocate disenfrancliisement for objectors. Unfortunately, although disagreeing with your correspondent on this point, neither of you realise; that "historically, legally, and constitutionally, not service hut exemption from it, is the citizen'6 privilege. Military service had never been a citizen's duty since taxation has been accepted oi( imposed by tho State in commutation, of such duty." I am performing my duty to the State in the ordinary, avocations of daily life and the State has no right to enforce any class of work, nor to derogate any citizen rights fos refusing to bo compelled to serve in the army. This is a very serious matter and cannot be lightly dealt with. I am, etc., C. R. N. MACKIE.

(One or two of our correspondents have lately exceeded the sixty lines to which wo limited letters on this subject. In future tho limit must be observed.— * Ed. " L.T.")