ALLEGED CONSCIENTIONUS OBJECTORS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LII, Issue 50, 28 February 1918, Page 7

ALLEGED CONSCIENTIONUS OBJECTORS

RIGHTS AXD LIABILITIES

THE FOURTEEN DEPORTED MEN

ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME. A lengthy statement has been issued bv Sir "James Allen, Minister of Dofence, regarding the treatment of alleged conscientious objectors. The main outline was published yesterday, but in view of repeated misrepresentation the full text, will be read with interest. .NOT CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS. The statement makes it clear that the fourteen objectors .sent to the front are not "conscientious objectors" as defined ~>y the Act. The law recognises only one class of objector for any measure of exceptional treatment, and this person may be classed as the "religious objector." ('Military .Service Act, section 18, sub section e.) There are also objectors whose objections are founded on religious grounds, but who do not come within the statute, and there are also objectors who advance objections on conscientious grounds apart from religions; all these people may be regarded as "conscientious objectors.'' Finally, there are objectors whose ob-. jections are. founded on a defiance of the law or a disinclination to serve in the forces; these may be called "defiant objectors."

MERELY SOLDIERS UNDER

PUNISHMENT.

The Defence Department has to -deal with the three classes of objectors mentioned. The "religious objector," if his appeal is allowed, goes to the Agricultural Department and is not handled by the Defence Department as far as his service is concerned. The , "conscientious objector ' and the "defiant objector" are given the opportunity to serve in the Ambulance, and if they will not take that opportunity, the Department is bound to carry out the law. It generally happens that the first conflict between those persons and the law is a flat refusal to obey the first order given to the man. If nothing but refusal and defiance can be got out of the man, he is taken before a competent military authority and is tried summarily tor the first offence. That is to say, he is tried in the same manner as a magistrate tries a person accused of an offence which he can deal with summarily. The military authority is entitled to award detention, and generally awards the man a period o detention possibly 28 days. The offender goes to the place of detention to serve his sentence and some, on. reflec tion, see.the error of their ways, arid when their sentences are expired obey orders like, other reasonable members of "the community. The greater number, however, on completion of their sentences, continue in the course of defiance and flatly refuse to obey the next order given. In that case the man is brought before a court-martial, and is tried by court-martial for the second offence of refusing to obey orders. He has every opportunity to bring forward and substantiate his defence, but in the majority of' cases there is no defence available to him except his unwilling ness to serve. The court-martial _is empowered to award imprisonment with or without hard labour as a punishj ment for this offence, and, in most ! case, a substantial term of impnsonI ment is inflicted. The infliction of the punishment and the execution of the sentence does not make the man any the less a soldier, or take him out of the operation of the Military Service Act. He is merelv a soldr&r under punishment for a military crime, and there is nothing to prevent, either before or on completion of his sentence, his being sent to the front like any other soldier.

MEN WHO' WERE SENT ABROAD. In July, 1917, fourteen m;-i, rcmprising five men who had expressed in some way conscientious objection, and nine men, who were simply "defiant ob jectors," embarked on a transport for service abroad. These men were all serving sentences of various kinds for refusal to obey orders, and it will be of interest to consider their cases indi yidually. There have been so many statements made in regard to these men, more or less exaggerated and untrue, that the fundamental facts are likely to be lost sight of. be borne in mind, considering these cases, that the whole of the fourteen men are men

■ whom the law has called up as soldiers j and their legal status is that of soldiers. ! If they commit one of-the most serious ''of military' crimes, that of refusal to obey orders, any weakening in.the firm handling of such defiant persons would immediately sap and eventually destroy that discipline which is the very essence of military efficiency. Th at . *key had an unpleasant time is quite likely, and was. to be expected. The only I method that the Defence Department • can employ to avoid an unpleasant time i for such men is to submit to their dei fiance of law and allow everyone to rule I his conduct according to his own will.

," The attached schedule sets out some particulars in regard to these men, including their names, the locality they came from, t>heir occupations, and thenappeals. It will be noted that four of them not only were not "religious objectors" nor "conscientious objectors, ' but were ordinary deserters. It will be further noted tliat five of them had so little conscientious objection that at the time of their appeals they 'did not even raise the question; and ; lastly, it should be noted that five .of them did raise religious objection, which was considered by a Military Serj vice Board and held not to be of such a ' character as to enable any relief under

■ the statute. ; i It is auite true that the 14 men were embarked'in.the evening. It is considered a more humane course to march prisoners to a transport m the evening rather than to march them . through the crowded streets in the ; broad daylight. There is nothing unusual or improper in such a course. It is also true that the next-of-Kin of these men were not notified oi their impending departure. The custom is to give next-of-kin of all'soldiers an opportunity to see their relatives at some time before they embark, and this course, through a departmental error inadvertently committed, was not 10l lowed in the case of the fourteen men in question. It is admitted that the neH-of-kin of these men should have

been notified in the same manner as next-of-kin of all soldiers are _ notified, and it is regretted that the omission occurred. If the omission had been discovered in time the men would not have been embarked until the next transThe fourteen men were embarked with the 28th Reinforcements on the

transport W , and proceeded in that .ship as far as Capetown, where the troops were transhipped into two other transports. Three men, 47814 Baxter, A. 'M'L., 47813 Baxter. J., 53969 Sanderson, A .E., were left ashore in Capetown for isolation By direction of the Cape military authorities. 'Two men (A. Baxter and L. J. Kir wan) proceeded to England on one of the two transports and the remaining nine on the other transport.

REFUSED TO' DO ANYTHING EVEN FOR THEMSELVES.

During the voyage on the W the fourteen men absolutely refused to obey anv orders, or to do any fatigue work about the ship. Some days they refused to take exercise, and earlier in the vovage they refused to keep their quarters clean. They refused to do anything even for themselves; they would not observe ordinary cleanliness, with the result that they had to be forcibly bathed; their civilian outfits were condemned bv the medical officer, and thev had to be forcibly dressed im uniform? They continued their defiant attitude throughout. Although the general attitude towards them could not be and was not one of sympathy, there was at least one officer who made efforts for their reformation, but all that he could do proved a failure, and they arrived at their destination as they had commenced their service ,defiant and refusing to obey orders. Manv letters from these men haxe been published with a view to creating svmpathv for persons who were allegedly imbued with religious or _ conscientious objections, but who in reality were imbued with a spirit of defiance. Garth Balantyne has written a letter which has been largely published complaining among other things of the ventilation of the "clink" in which they were placed, and ot the indescribable atmosphere, and of the want of exercise, and of the lack of utensils. As a matter of fact the guard room or "clink" was on the starboard side of the poop; the poop, which was above the level of the main deck, was allotted to the guard room, the quarters, and a small storeroom. "Ventilation was provided by a doorway into the poop ,skvlights above, and portholes along "the side. Only in very rough weather were the port-holes closed, an-d frequently when the port holes in the officers' quarters and the men's quarters were closed the port holes in the poop remained open. In the first few days of the voyage the ship ran into bad weather and the port holes in the poop were closed. "When the port-holes were closed the ventilation was not insufficient and was _ the same for the n.c.o.'s as for the prisoners in the guard-room. No complaints were raised by the n.c.o.'s. ALL THEIR OWN 1 FAULT. That the atmosphere was indescribable is possible; when fourteen men occupy one enclosure and will not do anythin gto keep the place clean, or observe personal cleanliness, an unpleasant atmosphere is the natural result, and helps to explain the necessity of forcibly washing" and dressing them. As to exercise, the majority first refused to do exercise, but they afterwards tired of the want of exercise. If they were short of eating utensils or blankc it was entirely their own fault for ncJ raising the question, as the full kit had been actually issued to them in common to all other men. Other letters have appeared in the public press and all have shown a continuance of the defiant attitude. Such letters that have appeared seem, without exception, to have been written by men who have advanced no claim whatever J.o base their objections upon conscientious scruples until they reached camp. '■'■'

NOT MAKING MARTYRS OP THEM.

When they arrived in England they were treated just the same as other soldiers . No doubt as they seem to. have continued their policy of defiance they very quickly came in conflict with authority. Eventually they came under the "notice of General Gpdley, who says as'follows —"The question of the disposal of conscientious objectors has cropped up. and is a very difficult one. Generals —— and have both _ recommended that they should be given no special consideration, and should be sent with drafts in the usual way, and treated like any other soldier. To this, however, I have not agreed, as the inevitable result would be that one of them would either desert or else refuse to go up to the trenches when and would then be shot for refusing to do duty in the face of the enemy. This would, of CQurse, Be the very worst thing, that could possibly happen, and would make martyrs of them. "At present there are- nine who are giving trouble in this country, six at Etaples, and three at a divisional reinforcement camp here. Of the first six Colonel Mitchell ,at staples, has persuaded four out of the, six to go forward as stretcher-bearers. I have told Colonel •Plugge at the reinforcement camp to try and induce his three, to do the same. A proposal was made to transfer them to the New Zealand Medical Corps, but to this I would not agree, as they can be given the same sort of opportunity as infantry stretch-er-bearers without making any special transfer for them. I see no objection to their being allowed to be stretcherbearers if they wish, and if it will satisfy their cnr.sciences ..as stretcher-bear-ers incur just as much danger as --anyother soldier, and the work they do is of equal value, and, provided they are sufficiently able-bodied to do the work, and it is work which more than satisfied their consciences than actually wielding a rifle, I see no reason why they should not do it, as they are performing equally valuable and .equally dangerous work for the force. Failing their agreeing to act as infantry stretch r er-bearers I have given orders that they are to be summarily punished, or dealt with at the reinforcement camps where they now are, and that they are not to be sent up to the front as recommended by Generals and- , my reason being, as I have explained to you, that if thev are sent up it is an absolute certainty that they will be made martyrs of." while if they have to be punished where they are now they will only receive ordinary punishment or imprisonment or whatever it may be, such as would be meted out to any other soldier who refuses duty.

\LL EXCEPT TWO HAVE AGREED TO'DO THEIR DUTY.

In a report- dated a week later General Godley s'ays:—"All the conscientious objectors sent from New Zealand except two have agreed to do duty either in the infantry or as stretcher-bearers. A special report on the two men who still refue.s duty and who are at Etaples, will be made later. I attribute the ionversion to a reasonable attitude of the majority of these men chiefly to the fact that thev were separated and posted to different companies and units and to their not being court-martialled m England." ."In addition to the two conscientious objectors mentioned there hive been three others who have been treated , 1-e any other soldier, and have bn u to be

tried by court-martial in France on a charge of disobedience of an order. The court found them 'guilty/ and c u-h n ted them to five years' p. j nai {-ervit-iide I have commuted the sentence to two 3'ears* hard labour, with a recomme-i lation that this may be suspeiuod ;ntr three months if their conduct is g,o<xi Statements have been made in the press that it is not intended to despatch abroad any more of the soldiers who have been punished for refusing to obey orders. These statements have btvp made without- foundation, and no Mich decision has been reached. A CLEAR-CUT ISSUE FOR THE NATION. The question presents jlear-eut issue for the people of this'country tc consider—(a) Whether the law solemnly and deliberately enacted by Parliament are to be obeyed, or (b)" whether defiance of the Jaw is to be permitted, and those persons who know no rule but but their own inclination are to be practically exempted from military service, while the citizens and sons of citizens who recognise and obey the law are to serve, >and possioly suffer wounls and death, in the interests of the nation.

The military authorities are responsible for administering the Military Service Act, and what they have .lone has been legally done. The question mny be asked: "What has the Dere ice Tepnrtment done which it should :iOt l rr-e done?" It is not conceivaDle that the people of this country would Hppvove of a course permitting persons w*io set the law at defiance to be absolved fvcm the law and be governed by iheir ■wn inclinations. If responsible authority is to knuckle under to insubordination the whole fabric of the 'British Emj ire would crumble into chaos.

Then follows the schedule giving the particulars of each case. It is intended to publish the statement in 'ull in pamphlet form.

Why does some tobacco bite the tongue? Experts now tell us that moisture is the offender. Common-sense, too! The moisture turns to steam during the combustion oi the tobacco, and this hot stean; naturally bites the tongue. Hence, the dryer the tobacco the cooler the smoke arid the better the value, because that surplus water adds to weight. Gold Pouch, the New Zealand grown tobacco, never bites the tongue —it is pure genuine tobacco without excess moisture. Unequalled in combustibility, it burns freely to the last shread "without that soppiness so common to most foreign tobaccos which foul the pipe and coat the tongue leaving a nasty bitter aftertaste. New Zealand soil and climate alone can produce a tobacco so mild and with such a small percentage of nicotine, containing but per cent , as against 4 per cent and 5 per cent in foreign tobaccos. Gold Pouch is the mildest and least injurious of all smokes not affecting the heart, no matter how much you smoke of it. No increase in price,, still obtn:nabL it a shilling per pouch.