THE DEFENCE LEAGUE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 12 April 1939, Page 9

THE DEFENCE LEAGUE

110 The Editor! i Sir, —We have to thank Mr Lorimer for ! his interesting and informative views jon what the Defence League thinks, I and we crave your permission to reply | to him and to ask a few more questions, i for this matter of the defence of New i Zealand is one of the most important of the day. We will take the replies to our questions in turn for, though not all are of the same importance they do contain some fundamentally important matter. If we draw conclusions no doubt Mr Lorimer will tell us whether they are correct. First then:—“The League recommends the introduction of compulsory ser- ! vice for all citizens on attaining a cerj tain age. This is the essence ot democ- : racy, the same service for all.” i May we ask since when conscription has been the essence of democracy? Since Germany adopted it? Since I Communist Russia adopted it? Since Fascist Italy adopted it? Or since England, U.S.A. and Australian (even ■in wartime) refused it? Some democI racies have not. The English have al- | ways been profoundly suspicious of conscription, and likewise of a powerful standing army. The root of this supsicion has been a fear that the armed forces might be used against the people, as they were in Austria, and as they were only recently in France, and as they were in Spain, by either the Government or a re-actionary revolutionary class. And it is a peculiar fact that army officers are almost invariably members of a re-actionary and un-democratic minded class, and are famous in the pages of history and of “Punch” for their narrow-minded-ness. Therefore to increase their own numbers, and to give them power over a large and non-politically-educated rank and file is to deliberately build up a danger to the State. Is is the desire of the Defence League to do this? Does the Defence League wish to protect us from an external enemy only in order to deliver us over to an internal one? Unless the Defence League is prepared to consider some things outside its very narrow, yet very undefined programme, this would appear to be a danger that it takes no cognisance of. Or does the Defence League think it desirable that all soldiers should be educated politically while in camp and in uniform by representatives of various parties, or by university lecturers, in order to make sure that there is no chance of their pointing the guns against the wrong side, even at the command of officers?

Mr Lorimer’s next reply includes the words “the utmost possible consideration.” They remind me of the saying that “wages will be as high as industry will bear.” They mean nothing at all. It may be, as Mr Lorimer says, that “it is obvious that the League . .

would like the defenders to be treated with the utmost possible consideration.” Does this mean the four shillings a day that soldiers received in the last war? Does this mean that after the defending they will be sold poor land at high prices to break their hearts on trying

to make a living? A little more de- * tail would be acceptable from the Defence League in regard to these matters. The matter of pay during training, says Mr Lorimer, is an administrative detail. It is just these administrative details that make all the difference between a happy and loyal force and a discontented one. The question of comfort in camps Mr Lorimer seems to take for granted—but we have been in camps, permanent camps, where the officers were a great deal more comfortable than the men, and we doubt whether that is democratic. The same comfort for all is more our idea. “No one dreams of interfering with the political and industrial freedom of soldiers.” Can soldiers in uniform attend a political meeting? Are soldiers allowed to form unions? We only ask for information. The matter of welfare committees appears to require no further discussion, but the matter of military courts is one requiring the greatest attention. The military courts of Australia, we are informed, had not the right to give a capital sentence. There are other very heavy sentences. Sentences which we have no hesitation in calling vile and savage, that military courts can inflict and have inflicted. Does the Defence League not consider that these heavy sentences should be reviewed by a civil court in view of the fact that military courts are not noted for their knowledge of legal procedure and are noted for their tendency to make hasty judgments—due, no doubt—to the time factor, and the military type of mind. The time factor may affect a hasty judgment but why it should prevent review at leisure by a Magistrate’s Court or a Supreme Court we cannot see. As for a civil court being of sufficient eminence to command the respect of a military court—we do not know who Mr Lorimer is, but the idea seems to indicate that he must himself have been some sort of officer once or he would know that the best military court in the world is not so likely to give justice as the average magistrate’s court. Military courts, if we may say so, have been celebrated throughout history, for their peculiar views of justice.

Economic sacrifices for defence, suggests Mr Lorimer, can only be made during war time. Then “where is the money coming from” to finance all this conscription of young men? Wherever there is a cost there also is an economic sacrifice. Would the Defence League agree to a heavy graduated income tax addition to pay for the tanks, guns, etc? After all. those who have most to defend should be prepared to spend most in defending it. The richest of us has no more lives to give than the poorest.

And in conclusion, let me assure Mr Lorimer that we of the Society have no desire to hinder the building up of a strong democratic army but so far we have found that the Defence League is prepared to advocate only the barest outlines, a sort of skeleton of a programme for that purpose. Not conscription alone but also understanding makes a democratic army. Not the “old school tie” loyalty of the old unit names, but a clear knowledge of what is being fought for, makes a fine "esprit de corps,” and the fact of justice and true comradeship between officers and men, the share-and-share-alike methods the abolition of the militaristic frills of saluting in the streets, fancy drills, parades for show, and all the rest of the “pomp and glory" which helps forward the business of war and wastes the money of the people; these things make for a solid and a democratic army. But we see that the Defence League is not interested in the details. Yet we can not believe that the Defence League’s policy is really just to get them all in the army and then forget them.—l am etc. THE SOCIETY FOR INVESTIGATING THE DEFENCE LEAGUE Nelson, 11th April. ITo The Editor! Sir.—The extraordinary muddle of questions asked by the “Society for Investigation of the Defence League” will, I am sure, be ably answered by the chairman of the Nelson branch of the New Zealand Defence League. But the last question of the long list in your issue of 10th April will recall, no doubt, those “recruiting sermons” we all had to listen to in 1914-1918. It would be better, I think, that the clergy should not be free from conscription. I remember the then Primate of New Zealand (Anglican Church) using a weird argument for the freedom from conscription of the Anglican clergy. He said it was "unthinkable” that the hands that handled "the Bread of Life” in Communion services, should be used in warfare. I sat in my pew, and remembered the fact that the French priests were "conscripted” and fought in their country’s ranks! All honour to them that it was so. Sometimes I think the prayer “Give us this day our daily bread” means (among others things) “Give us the daily bread of a sane and healthy judgment.”—l am, etc., GRACE FOX. Wakefield. 11th April.