THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1929. THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20300, 6 July 1929, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1929. THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS.

Reverting to the cases of the young men who have repudiated their obligation to undergo military training and have thereby invited the application to themselves of the penal clauses of the Defence Act, the Auckland Presbytery has hesitated to give a decisive pronouncement of its attitude. Instead, it has referred the question of tho rights of Presbyterians to exemption from military service to a committee of the General Assembly already charged with consideration of the whole subject, and has deferred for a month its discussion of a motion expressing regret that these young men had not accepted the alternative service offered to them by the court. So far as the first question is concerned, the outcome of the debate has considerable justification, for the Assembly committee is in a better position than any local presbytery to handle a matter affecting the whole denomination. As it happens, that committee, after taking legal advice, has come to some decisions on the general aspects of the question, and is taking steps to raise them before the Minister oi Justice. Incidentally, it has stated that the Presbyterian Church does not encourage the refusal to accept military training so long as that continues to bo the law of the land. It is further to be noted that the Assembly committee has gone ahead of the presbytery by putting on record its regret that the young men did not accept the offer of the court as to alternative service. By a narrow majority, the presbytery refrained from doing this. Nothing has been gained by adjourning the debate on this aspect. The motion expressing regret at the stubborn conduct of these young men, and declaring that they had refused the offer of alternative service against the considered advice of the presbytery, was reasonable and dignified. It is difficult to understand opposition to it. In view of the finding of the Assembly committee, which was endorsed by the Dunedin Presbytery on the day that the Auckland Presbytery talked the matter out to no purpose, the opposition is not only difficult to understand: it is difficult to excuse. These -young men have flouted the presbytery's advice as well as the law of the land. Their attempt to cover their refusal by protesting that the court had no authority to make the offer was merely a braggart quibble. The Act, it is true, speaks of alternative service as prescribed from time to time by the Governor-in-Council; but, had they been prepared to accept the spirit of the law, they could safely and honourably have accepted offer of the court, and left it to take care of itself. Declining and presenting this quibble as their reason, they for ever destroyed any possibility of believing in their good faith. Their avowed objection is to the spirit of the law, and they tried to take adventitious shelter under its letter. Whoever unwisely gave them this Machiavellian advice, it was not the presbytery nor any other authority of the denomination ; and it is more than a pity that the presbytery lacked a majority ready at once to say so. But the particular cases of these young men may be left for the present—to allow of brief consideration of the broader question. The exemption clauses of the amendin-g Act were welcomed by all parties in the House as a fair and honest attempt to meet the sincere difficulties of the religious objector. That was their intention. Of the " conscientious " objector, it may be pointed out, the legislation knows nothing, and the introduction of the word has done a good deal to confuse and distort the issue. It is understood that the Auckland magistrates, with only the wording of these clauses and of the earlier relevant enactments to guide them, have felt compelled to look for proof of good faith to any declared tenets or pronouncements against military training, of the bodies of which the applicants for exemption are members. Obviously, to accept the mere statement of the applicant as sufficient would be futile, if not dangerous. It would defeat the purpose of the legislation, which is to spread as widely as possible the citizen duty of defence; it would allow any lawless shirker to escape responsibility. Tho Presbyterian Church has made no such pronouncement. and it is highly probable thfit a vast majority of its members would oppose any proposal of the kind. Until it makes such a pronouncement —against all training for defence—it is idle to suggest that there has been discrimination against Presbyterians because exemption has been granted to some belonging to denominations that have so pronounced. The law has been difficult to administer, because legislation cannot easily be made for exceptions. Should attempt be made to alter it, scrupulous care ought to be taken to prevent its further extension to exceptions from causing it to break down altogether. After all, as some members of the Auckland Presbytery seem to have forgotten, this matter of military service is of vital concern to the State, and it is the duty of the Church to come to the help of tho State, not to weaken it.