LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16542, 16 November 1915, Page 2

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

NATIONAL SERVICE. Sib, —I am very plmaed to see from tha tone of tho letters of your numerous correspondents thai we axo beginning at last to realise the inadequacy of oorr methods for coping with our powerful and unscrupulous enemy. No one can recognise and appreciate tho efforts that have been made by the dominion better than I can, but I have always thought that voluntary eeirvioe would only prove satisfying up to a certain point, and I think, with most of your correspondents, that point has been reached. That compulsory service, both of men and means, is tho only alternative can only bo denied by those who arc either unpatriotic or thoroughly selfish. I have tho addresses by speakers of the Chamber of Commerce, and 1 believe, in common with eighttenths of the people of tho dominion, I am in complete agreement with them. I may also say that • 1 have long thought it necessary to set an example to tho British Cabinet by adopting measures which alono can crown our off oris with success. It is pitiable to eee Mr Lloyd George going about the country threatening and entreating sections of tho peoplo wham he lias himsolf taught to set law and authority at defiance, and who arc more concerned about their share of war profits than the preservation of tho Empire. I have every confidence in the ultimate outcome, but I do not think that Mr Asquith and his political associates will prove very potent factors in bringing about the desired result. —I am, etc., G. C. C.

Sir, —May I again venture to crave a little of your space in reply to " Compulsion" and T. C. M„" whoso letters appeared in this morning's issue. At the beginning, I wish to impress upon these two correspondents that, whilst they aro prepared to criticise certain things in my previous letter, they do not attempt to bring forward any logical argument or proofs against any of the statements made therein. I conclude from this that they aro agreed on tho main essential point of my letter —namely, that conscription means cheap soldiers, and that this is the really great aim of the conscriptionists in all countries. This is proved by a statement—a particularly callous statement from my point of view—made by a responsible Minister in the dominion during the • last few days, when he informed the public that when a single man is killed in action the State is done with him, but when a married man is killed the State has to keep his dependents. "Compulsion" wishes to know if I would state "who is it that should volunteer?" I would reply that every man who really believes in war and has never done anything in the times of peace to promote peaco should certainly volunteer, whether married or single, and the State should bo prepared to keep the dependents of these men by the imposition of a heavy tax on large incomes belonging to the class of capitalists who promote war in all countries.

At the same time I would point out to "Compulsion" that in the case of the conscientious objcctors to military service who havo thoroughly digested the horrors of war, and who in the majority ,of cases belonged to some organisation in the times of peace that was "out" to kijll militarism by an international movement, their objection to military service should be rcspected in just the same way as one respects a man's religion, and that they should not be forced to do anything which they conscientiously believe to be wrong and against the future progress of humanity. "T. C. M." says there is no open hostility on the part of toe workers to conscription, but I would warn him to let sleeping dogs lie, as you can never tell when they are awake. There i 3 always a possibility of being attacked in the rear, and then you begin to wonder what has struck you. His statement that "even if the workers were opposed to conscription, it was a question whether it should-not be made law all the same," is worthy of a Russian autocrat, and a sufficient illustration to workers of the methods which the conscriptionists will employ to serve their own dastardly ends. , I would like to impress uipon "T. C. M." that the ordinary working man has a complete right to be considered on the question. In the first place, the quarrel which gave rise to the war, it was not a workers' quarrel; and, as things stand at present, however great the sacrifice made by the workers during the war, in no country will they be considered or consulted about the settlement. It was the diplomats who quarrelled, and it was not until their quarrel had become too aeute_ to be settled amicably that the workers in any country were asked to do anything in the matter. Then they were' asked to go to war. In most countries they, were not even asked; they were commanded to go. They have gone, and are bearing its hardships with remarkable fortitude, and in so far as their business goes it is their' war mainly., But when the military situation has been made such that a settlement may be discussed, the 'workers must vacate the stage and make room for tile diplomats. The workers of all countries fight the wars and 'bear the greatest hardships, but in no country are they allowed to have a voiof» in the making or settling of them. This is my reply to "T. C. M.," who would in much the same manner debar tho worker from having a voice in tho important matter of conscription.

Conseriptionists ask mo whether I would support compulsion if it bo necessary to the successful prosecution of the war. What is to be considered succcss? So far as the workers are concerncd, there is only one thing defeat can take from them —namely, their liberties. _ There is only one thing victory can bring to them, and that is a continuation of their liberties as before the war. They have no land, or houses, or railways, or mines, or foreign investments, or any other properties to loso to a foreign foe. The great mass of them have only their liberties and a cartload of furniture in the uTi'ole world. They have not gone to war to protect that cartload of- furniture. In some cases the English landlord has done his worst with that whilst the soldier has been away fighting. It. is their liberties they have gone out to protect, and would it be considered success if, whilst they are away, we were to surrender those liberties, which they consider so. precious, to a handful of elderly conscriptionists and a few militarised politicians? That would not be succcss; it would be a disgraceful defeat. Therefore, I am against conscription absolutely and completely. I am afraid " Compulsion" and *"P. C. M.," along with others of your correspondents advocating conscription, aro in danger of fixing their eyes so firmly on the military Ogre m Berlin as to be in great danger of being gripped unawares from the roar by the same military Ogre at Home.— I am, 'etc., Anti-Humbug.

Sib, —I have to thank you for publishing, as far as you have evidently considered advisable, letters dealing with matters of public moment that have appeared over my signature from time, to time, moro especially as they are of a tone unlikely to add to the influence of daily nwespapers conducted in the interest of capitalism. With regard to my letter published a fortnight ago, on compulsory service, I noticed that several unsavoury phrases wore carefully chopped out, but I overlook that, and hear no malice. I sec what points should bo cultivated in tho art of newspaper correspondence. I consider you have dono tho public a good turn by publishing Mr W. D. Mason's three-quarter column of splendid revelation in this morning's issue, and must ask leave to compliment Mr Mason on his letter, and his straight and fearless statements in tho teeth of opposition. One would draw the conclusion, from reading the paltry trash that finds its way into almost every issue of your paper from anonymous scandalmongering hypocrites and conscription theorists, that a general consensus of opinion in New Zealand was in favour of compulsion. Nothing would be further from tho truth. These anonymous epistles, which have no right to bs published on a burning question like the one under review, aro from a few privileged persons, such as namby-pamby busy-bodie6, old women of both sexes, members of some wholesale commercial "rooking" conccrn, lawyers, parsons, and politicians travelling incognito. Moreover, I venture to say that some correspondence, purporting to bo from workers, is, if tho truth were known, from representatives of one or other of these parasitical classes. They want compulsion of men, but capital and vested interests must be left severely alone. It would nover do a.t all to organise industries on a national basis, for then these mercantile firms would not pay euch big dividends, and, war or no war, tnis appalling and unbridled free play of private enterprise must not bo interfered with, but must be preserved and protected at all costs. I hereby charge all your anonymous correspondents on tliiß, tho burning question of the hour, with advocating oxi these principles. Let them come before tho limelight and reveal their identity, if they dare, and refute my accusations against them. How rudely has Mr Mason torn the mask of hypocrisy from off their faces, and shown them up in their real colours! It is because of his straight-out speaking and fearlessly democratic principles that he is denied a seat among the representatives of a "democratic" country. But that is by the way.

Mr J. J. Ramsay, in last Thursday's issue, believes, if I take him aright, in equitable oonseription, which is to say, that tfho wealth-crowned shirker should be brought into line, be ho married or single, on common ground with his wage-earning brethren, and his industries organised and

fa is oapital utilised for the building of transports and manufacture of munitions, in a Wtty that the department (not yet formed) would deem most expedient in the prosecution of the war. I say that, in ouch a way only, would conscription bo equitable; and I say that a married man of military _ ago, if wealthy or well-to-do, is a bigger 'Vaster" than tho unmarried poor man who won't volunteer, Ibecaueo (a) ho has mono to protect, and (b) can provide for his widow and family without involving Stato obligation. Tho old gag about "dependents" is threadbare. This is tli© twentieth century, and not tho Elizabethan era, in which _wo live. Equitable, not economic, conscrintion. please! A letter signed "J. M. Twomey" can only bo classified as an illogical effusion. He arraigns Labour for saying "I have nothing to defend; let tho rich defend their riches." And, with evident disregard for truth or logic, he adds: "The poorer you are the greater your interest in defending the country. No mnn can have greater riches" than life and liberty. If the Germans took Now Zealand to-morrow a man worth £50,000 could buy his liberty, with, say, £5000 or £10,000, and then become a German subject or go to America. The poor man could not do this; he would have to remain a German slave, to bo kicked like a dog. Are working men going to be led by prattling, brainless gasbags whom they pay to mislead them?" Would the process of becoming a German subjcct be accompanicd by much liberty, especially if "it pleased tho sweet will of the German authorities to exact all the Tich man's fortune, as tho price of citizenship? "That would bo exchanging liberty for liberty, or soiling his wealth for a nominal distinction, or if ho "went to America" ho would, under tho circumstances, be a more contemptible coward' than I can find adjectives to express. If the capitalists of a British dominion, in the event of a Hun conquost, went to America or anywhere else with moral impunity, why cannot a working man do the same while the war lasts.? Moreover, lie would have to buy his certificate of citizenship under such a system before they would let him go. But the main point is, that he loses nothing by tho transaction, according to Mr Twomey's logic. As for the poor man being a slave, he is that already—an economic slave. W hat beats me is, if there are do richee greater than life and liberty, which 'is tho liberty of going to prison if one cannot pay one's debts, why is everybody, Mr Twomey among tho rest, straining and striving so strenuouslv for the mastery and command of that abominable stuff, filthy lucre? I rather fancy Mr Twomey will find difficulty in answering that question—l am, etc., Obe (navvy).

[The writers of most of the letters which wei have published, advocating compulsory military service, have signed their names to them. And, so far as we are concerned, no letter favouring compulsion has been published over a signature which does not correctly describe the writer. Our correspondent's attempt, therefore, to discount the testimony in favour of compulsion fails. —Ed. O.D.T.]

Sir,—For a little while I ask your indulgence to enable mo to deal with a sideissue in this controversy. I refer to the inane platitudes contributed to tho discussion, and particularly to those of Mr John Law, jun., of Ranfurly. Mr Law can distribute his little platitudes as far as he pleases, but when he sneers at a man whose boy is fighting to protect the home and property he has accumulated at Ranfurly by telling me to do "two hours' thinking" about a matter which has occupied my undivided serious thought for over a year, he is out to court a castigation, which I now take it upon myself to administer. Mr Law himself is a concrete instance of the type of well-to-do married man with a grown-up family and a big stake in the country that is so scathingly denounced bv his . comrade, Mr Mason. He is, in addition, a past captain of the Naseby Volunteers, bodily fit, and in his prime. What has he done to sanctify the voluntaryism he mouths? Captain Jolly, of Cromwell, has left a wife and seven small children in like circumstances. What has Mr Law done? Mouthed platitudes about tho right to shirk, given some of his war -profits to the fund, presented a flag to Ranfurly, and sneered at me in this impertinent fashion. Let me give you, on tho other hand, the opinion of one of the most broad-minded and intellectual men in Otago. I should like to use his name, but will not do so without hie special leave. He writes as follows in an appreciative letter : "I should like, if you care to have it, to associate myself with those who have supported and commended your excellent lettiers on compulsory service. I' think 'J. J. R.' has come into his own." I do not use this for any egotistical purpose. I would avoid the Scylla. of egoism and the Charybdis, of mock, modesty. So much for Mr Law's opinion. He is like an arrival in a new wonderland, $nd his corkscrew•twisted mental, shibboleth-clothed, cynical outlook is incapable of embracing the general landscape. He sees little bogeys and hobgoblins instead , of great realities. If Mr Law does not like my bluntness he has himself and his 'colossal impertinence to thank for it. I flatter myself that no one who reads my letters, even though they widely differ from my view, will deny that I am master of my subject. I would now.. Sir, like to pass on to the crux of this disenssion. I want to force the matter to a head. I have hot written to bring myself into the limelight. Mr Edio struck a note that woke the growing fire of my intensity, and fortfed me, as a father, to cry aloud lor justice to our bloodstained boys. I havo used the gift I inherit from a long line of ancestors —that of ability to put in concrete form what I feel. In a great and glorious cause I have used that talent for all I am worth, and' certainly in papers far and wide, and while it is necessary, and you grant me space, which I think you have so far given mo with your fullest approval, I shall use that talent as a divine and sacred duty. What am I doing? I am putting into plain, unmistakable, and force-convincing English the cry of David, the King of Israel—a cry ascending to-day from Fne proud, sad, heart-torn fathers and mothers of New Zealand: " 0, Absolom, my son, my son, Absolom! Would God I had. died for theo! Oh, Absolom, my son, my son!" This feeling has never entered tho heart of the academic, cool, sneering visionaries, who cannot climb the' heights or sound the depths of this awful modern tragedy. They cannot picture the sad and noble mother supplicating by her bedside for the darling boy she has given to the Empire—proudly supplicating, too, but, like Rachel, "weeping for her children." To those cynics it has not been given to seo tho tragedy, and, what is worse, to realise the awful enormity of attenipting to put obstacles in the way of a movement having for its object, and that object alone, the galvanising into State-enactedi law of the vital principle that fn the nation's stress the duty of every man to face the issue is national, imperative, and logically compulsory. We have to ride over fleas, and not one of them can stem the flowing tide of indignant and determined righteous force which is sweeping over the dominion from Auckland to Bluff. It will flow over such obstructions, andi cast them aside as tho oldtime digger forked tho obstructing stones ,that impeded the flow his gold-laden sluice in the old-time tail race, out from their puny interference with his industry. "Do two hours' thinking," forsooth 1 My God! Is there in this dominion a father with a boy at the front who has done anything else but think of the tragedy every Waking hour, and even in his sleep? This is no comedy; its tragedy is overwhelming. Our Absoloms! Oh, our Absoloms! And now, Sir, may I be permitted to prefer a request? The Dunedin show will soon be on. Will some one arrange for a huge public meeting, and arrange also that I have the opportunity to speak thereto? I want to convert what I have written, with such absolute approval by the sane men of tlhe province, into action, and by gathering the people in one huge mass pass such a determined resolution as will reverberate from Auckland to the Bluff. I will have to como in my chair, but I will promise those who heard me on the Mosgiel platform a decade ago, that there is still enough of tihe old fire which 20 years syne earned me, in the columns, of tho Tuapeka Times, tho title of "the fiery' and untamed Radical from the wilds of Central Otago," to enable me with tho able aid of my fellow-workers in your columns, to give valid reasons for tho faith, and tho determination, that are in us. I would deem it a privilege and an honour, before I am laid beneath the silvery waving tussocks of the Central land I love so well to help to complete a publio career of somo 30 years' duration— looking back over which I can conscientiously say I havo never had one motive but the good of my fellow man—and for which I am a poor man to-day—by helping to rouse into action a sleeping Government that stands gazing at tho disappearing skeleton of an old superstitious shibboleth, as it flies skywards before the dawn of a new day, hesitating still, to man boldly the narrow way, and liko Horatio , guard the gateway by_ which alone freedom and justice are attainable. May I point out to " Fairplay," who is scared of the word " conscription" as if it was a class imposition, that what we are arguing for is an jail round square deal? Single men have the least responsibility, and they and in order of ago should go first. ' But I would certainly not allow immaturo boys to go to save mature married men, and tiliat could not happen under an organised system. As tcr wealth, I would have it registered and treated likewise. I do not admit that I am one of those you refer to who would use this

crisis to carry out a fad. I would use it sanely and fairly as we should the national service, to provide both that wealth contributed its just and equitable share, and that grasping grabbers oould not make fortunes out of our country's calamities. Wealth always manages to take caxe of itself. We need not fear about that.—l am, etc., ■ J. J. Ramsay. Alexandra, November 13.