RECUSANTS UNDER THE DEFENCE ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15821, 21 July 1913, Page 6

RECUSANTS UNDER THE DEFENCE ACT.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir,—l should like to offer a suggestion to the lion. James Allen on the matter of handling tnc recusants under the Defence anxious not to be a persecutor ol tuu conscientious objeotor; lus difficulty is to distmgu'.sh between the real thing and the spurious •or manuiactured article. My purpose is wot to dogmatise on tiie distinction, but rather to offer a practical suggestion. One may, however, affirm tnat the genuine article is well known in history. Tne genuine conscience has never mode a howl about itself, nor been afraid to suffer for conscience' sake. On the contrary, this is the very thing that it has affirmed to be one's drey to ao. At the same time, having been taught by suffering, it has learned to be more careful about wounding, by political, social, or other Usabilities, any one who suffers lor conscience' sake. A live conscience is the mark of a disciplined and God-fearing mind. It will enduro suffering rather than be disloyal to Him who occupies the throne of the heart. The men in history who suffered most for conscience' sake have given this as their final testimony: " It is the inalienable right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own heart." Consequently when a new Act i 6 imposed on the public, and some refuse on religious or conscientious • grounds to conform, it behoves us to give a respectful hearing to the objectors. . But we are entitled to form our own judgment as to whether the resistance is in the conscience or in the will. If it is found in tho former—well, tho moral lesson may need enlightenment; and if in the latter, then the will may need disciplining and subduing. Our history, however, owe 6 too much to the Society of Friends—the perpetual advocates of Peace —for ug to give anything but respectful sympathetic attention to their objection. Their-conscience, enlightened by the Book of Books, holds allegiance in this matter to the Prince of Peace—perhaps mistakenly, nevertheless really and loyally. Wo remember how John Bright rather than be responsible for war retired from the British Cabinet. Would tha.t the Cabinets of the world had a majority of such men! But if men refuse to obey a law merely because they don't like it, or because it is not in their political programme, or from sheer " cussedness," that is another matter, and some means there must be of distinguishing these classes. It is such a test that the Minister of Defence desiderates. Such a test cannot well be found; for who is to judge another man's conscience? To his own Master he stands or falls, Therefore let the test bo automatic and the penalty or suffering be self-imposed, and not much mistake will be •made,

V\ o have no reason to do other than applaud all the reasonable efforts of any party in favour of international peace. Indeed, having made military drill a national and universal duty, and thus set an examplo to the Empire, wo might very well give tne lead m another direction, and proclaim a Peace and Thanksgiving Day-a, day in which: we should be called on to thank God for peace, and to pray for its continuance— a day placed apart for setting forth at once the horrors of war and the glories of Peace. The American Republic has an' annual Thanksgiving Day proclaimed by the President, when ho calls on the people *° repair to their ohurohes and thank Almighty God for the peace and prosperity vouchsafed to tho land—an example we might well follow.

At present, it must be said that both parties in the State, in a laudable ambition to be ioya! to the principle of the Defence Act, seem zealous overmuch in dealing with the recusants. One knows how a wall initial offence in military affaire may grow and grow until a molehill is made into a. mountain, and a small initial resistance is fanned into an armed revolt. It must be remembered that the recusants are few in number. Patriotism is a factor that may be counted on, and in case of real danger not to eay invasion, wo should all be called to arms, and the recusants would only too willingly take their place in the ranks. A lot ot the men who gave a good account ot themselves in the Boer .war went straight from tne plough, and while that wouldn't do for a modern army, yet it reminds us that it is unnecessary to manufacture martyrs and render the Defence Act unpopular by over-zeal in the enforcement of its provisions in every case. And this doubtless, is the desiro of Parliament. In view of those facte, I suggest, to begin with, that tho refusal of free places in the secondary schools to boys wJio decline military drill—they must be very few in number —is unnecessarily hareh, and an injury as much to the State as to the boys. It is unnecessarily harsh, as the boys, doubtless act under parental direction, and exclusion from tree places may handicap a youth for life. It savours' more of German militarism than of our saner British ways. And in the case of the Territorials, surely fining and imprisonment or military detention are unnecessary. As I have said, the recusants are few in number, and in the event of invasion would, whether drilled or not, if physically fit, be hustled into the rank Why not then, in the event-of refusal to attend drill, confine tho penalty to the merely negative one of striking the names of recusants off every electoral roll, and from eligibility for State employment? A man with a genuine conscience in the matter would cither accept drill or offer some alternative service to the State, failing which he would accept exclusion from the political arena to save him violating his conscience by undergoing military drill. If as an alternative to military drill he was offered, say, so many days' tree-planting on a Government plantation or grounds, and refused it, surely it would be a travesty of conscience to allege a conscientious objection to planting trees. Failing acceptances of that testing alternative, then ■he should have his name removed from the public electoral roll, and from the public eorvice. As all these tests of oonscienco would be automatic, and the penalties selfimposed, it would bo exceedingly difficult to acquire the glory of notoriety, or the halo of martyrdom, for refusing to comply with the first law of nature—preparation for self defence. Moreover, if tne voto and public service are reserved only for those who are prqiared to give a little time to qualify for defence against inva-, sion, surely this would bo a most legitimate application of the principle of "preference," an application the Labour party could not well object to. It is n slur on the traditions' and manhood of Labour to suggest that as a whole, or in any appreciable numbers, the men of brains and muselo are unwilling to defend their country. Every one knows that to the lest shilling they would spend and be spent in defence of "this beautiful land. Indeed, it may bo safely affirmed that most of the outcry comes from men bred in less favoured climes. Lot us, therefore, not create unnecessary antagonisms by fine or imprisonment, and tho manufacture of grievances, because a handful of men and boys refuse to drill, Let the Minister of Defence content himself by saving: " Gentlemen, you must come to drill. If your conscience forbids, I offer you so many days' tree-planting, equivalent to tho time spent in drill. If you refuse the offer, I am sorry your name* will not appear on the electoral roll, and I must give preference in State employment to men who, should invasion occur, will not only be willing, but be fit to defend their homes and their country."—l am, etc., P. B. Fraseb.