Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1917. THE CARROLL CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLII, Issue 10119, 29 October 1917, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1917. THE CARROLL CASE.

The salutary sentence passed upon Francis Joseph Carroll, who was found guilty of deserting from His .Majesty's Expeditionary Force by the District Court-martial, which sat at Palmcrston last' week, comes as a timely reminder of the. duties and obligations of members of the Expeditionary Force Reserve, who are called up for service either by ballot or otherwise. The Expeditionary Force Reserve was established by the .Military Service Act, 1916, section 2 of clause 3 thereof providing that such reserve should, with certain defined exceptions, "consist oi every male natural-bom British subject who is for the time being of military age, and who is at the passing oi this Act, or subsequently becomes, resident in New Zealand," "Military Age as defined by the Act" means any age not less than twenty years, and less than forty-six years." Carroll, as a member of the First Division, was called up under Section 35, known as the "Shirkers' Clause," which provides that, it the Minister of Defence is .satisfied With respect to any family that it consists ol or includes, two or more brothers who belong to the First Division oi the Reserve, and are not permanently unfit for military service, he may at any time . • • give, or cause to be. given, notice To all or any of these brothers to show cause before a Military Service Hoard why they should not lie Vailed up for service with the Expeditionary Force." Such calling up is, ol course, subject to the right of appeal, but once the determination ol the Board is signed (assuming that the appeal is disallowed), the man so called up becomes a Inember of the Kxpeditionary Force, and is consequently subject to the pains and penalties winch follow the disobedience of orders given or sent to him. The evidence placed before the Court-Martial set forth the facts very clearly, and the defence did not attempt to deny that Carroll was a "natural born British subject" ol "military age'" ; that he had been called up under Section 35" ; that lie had appealed against such calling up unsuccessfully ; that he had failed to parade on February 5, the date upon which lie was notified to parade at the Palnierston Showgrounds, and that he had also failed to report himself to, or to communicate with the military authorities in regard to his absence from the Expeditionary Force. The points upon which the 'defence apparently relied were that as Carroll, after the failure of his appeal, bail refused to attest and to take the oath of service, he was relieved of his liability for such service and that, consequently, the charge preferred against him was a civil, rather than a military one. Counsel indeed went- so far as to contend, that, because

the prosecution had not actually proved the delivery of the notice (tho reference being "to the order to parade on February 5) upon the accused, the charge must fail, as Carroll was not even a soldier, and, not being a soldier, could not be a deserter. But clause 35 is. sufficiently explicit on that point, its effect being wholly mandatory. Carroll had appealed to. the First Wellington Military Service Hoard against the notice served upon him under the authority of the Minister of Defence. He had attended in person to prosecute the appeal, and knew that it had failed, and where such an appeal is disallowed section 5 ol !clause 35 expressly states that the man to whom the Minister has K' vf, » such notice -'shall be deemed to be called up For service with the Expeditionary Force," and "shall thereupon become a member of that Force." Carroll s position was therefore clear, and it is evident from the facts adduced at the trial that he went North, changed Ins name and endeavoured to pose as an American citizen, in order to evade the duty the law cast upon him. The offence of which he was found guilty was not a civil but a military one, counsels contention to the contrary, notwithstanding. It was, therefore, an offence which a military court alone was competent to try. "Counsel rather unwisely not only criticised the construction of the court-martial, but took up the parable set forth bv the local trustees of the National Efficiency Board on Thursday in their protest against the alleged "waste of time" and loss of efficiency involved in setting; up elaborate Courts-Martial to try deserters. With every respect to the very worthy gentlemen who act in that capacity, we cannot help feeling that they exceeded their Functions and showed a lamentable ignorance of the facts operating in ,the Carroll ease. So far from there Being a "waste of time" in connection with the proceedings, tho case did not occupy more than one working day altogether. Had it been tried in a criminal court it would have necessitated at least two hearings, and the attendance at both the Magistrate's and Criminal Con its of all the witnesses concerned, including the military, with a possible appeal to the Supreme Court at its close, the whole proceedings entailing at least three times tho cost of the niilij tary proceedings, with the possible upsetting of the prosecution on the ground that the offence was a military and not a civil one.