MILITARY TRAINING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15922, 7 May 1912, Page 8

MILITARY TRAINING.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Allow me space in your paper to comment on the silly frame of mind in which " Payne-Leslie " goes to work. He says that he noticed the word*,' "Wo wont train to shoot down strikers, ' and wants to know who the "we" stands for. Well, the "we" stands for those who recognise that a class war is in progress, .and that a movement is in existence to Use the workers against themselves. H» also states that those words U e a vam boast. I think those words should be the motto of every worker who is true to his class. In conclusion, I would like to remind "Payne-Leslie" of the fact that armies are made up of working people, that if those people refuse tc enlist theTe will be no armies, and that if there are no armies there will be no wars.—l am, eto., H. H. FOOTE.

TO THE, EMTOK. _ Sir,—" Uninitiated " has voiced the inquiry of thousands of your readers, not only in Christchurch but throughout the whole of Canterbury, when lie asks why the Press persists in suppressing every item of news telling against this detestable Act and glorifiee every little detail it can sorape together in its favour. The public are not the simple fools the Press evidently supposes them to be. They know the desperate straits tho supporters of thii Act are placed in to find excuses for its existence, chief among which is the wilful misrepresentation of the Press. consisting mainly of the abuse of iti opponents and a sickening eulogy, amounting to childishness, of every khaki-clad unit ivho is satisfied with it. A short time ago I called vou* attention to a series of eulogistic articles appearing in your paper, articlea rounded upon the flimsiest evidence, , and asked why you gave precedence to ' such statements, and studiously omitted overwhelming testimony condemning the system and its pernicious eflects. ISo notice was taken of this undeniable evidence of one-sided falsity which I pointed out. Of course .not. Echo answers why ? So will tha public at the next election. .1 also 6ent a letter to your paper before the Mayoral election caJling attention to J, J. Dougall's support of this Act, and advising electors to "turn him out." You refused to insert that also, but your refusal answered admirably. It stimulated his opponents to greater efforts, and "he went out." So will a few other public men later on. You still persist in saying (with the rest of yonr contemporaries) £hat the "English Army Act" is not incorporated in this defence system. why thi3 perversity when you know that it isP And, being there, can be used at the will of the military authorities, over which the civil courts have" ne jurisdiction. Now you are asked to publish "particulars of men being shot under this very clause" handed to you for publication, also complaints from men forced into the recent camps. Your excuse is " You have not heard of either case." This is strange,, in view of the trivialities you' have heard in its favour. All your information is so one-sided that one suspects ' ita source is tainted with the •'•' patriotism" that flings stones into Chinese shop windows. I do not own a newspaper or keep in touch with "a central news depot," yet I have heard numberless complaints from men "forced '' into camp. The "form of oath " has been shown to me by Territorials forced to sign it, and I have heard their imprecations upon Aho whole system, but as most of them are "under age"—therein lies'the coju temptible cowardice of the whole which no editor has yet been " man ? enough to condemn—they are power* less. But they won't be later on. when, they are voters. The Prohibitioi League complained of the drinking in camp. It was true enough, but it is suppressed bv the Press. Perhaps " you haven't heard of it." lam glad to see the iron moulders' resist anoe is likely to culminate in a strike. If all the workers follow suit this news-paper-inflated Act will soon receive its quietus, but if that remedy fails thi ■next election, which is not far off, will give it "a military funeral."—l, am, etc..

E. TOWNSEND. (We have allowed our correspondent to exceed the limit we have placed ot letters dealing with this subject; so'that he may present his whole case in his own way. We trust he will not presume uuon our indtilgence'.— Ed., ".L. T.")~