READERS' VIEWS ABOUT CONSCRIPTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16577, 28 December 1915, Page 2

READERS' VIEWS ABOUT CONSCRIPTION.

TO the editor. Sir, —Just as a judge sums up the evidence and the arguments oil each side in presenting to the jury the issues to bo determined in any trial, a summing up of tho arguments, for and against conscription, as disclosed in the correspondence columns of the Daily Times, might serve to clarify the position and make possible a truer perspective through the maze of words and tho medley ot high-sounding phrases. It is needless to emphasise the importance or the enthralling interest the subject claims from all New Zealandei's at this time, and it is equally needless to single out any special letters for submission to such a judicial analysis. Wherefore, as chance has determined, the issue of last Wednesday, tho 22nd, is taken up, and the question of conscription, as reviewed by the correspondents ".Worker," W. D. Mason, "National Service," and "M. 5.," is weighed as fairly as may be. "Worker" and "National Service" are the spokesmen for conscription. Before reviewing the case as presented by them, it would be well _to understand clearly that the question at issue is not whether conscription "per so" and in normal times is desirable or necessary for tho safeguarding of our great Imperial interests. That is rather an abstract question, the discussion of which this strenuous hour of crisis does not admit at the moment. We do not stop to discuss the relative merits of fire-quenching appliances while the house is on fire. We scjzo upon the bcst_ means available, and later, when the fi.ro is subdued, wo can return to the question of deciding what are the best means. Thus it is that at the moment the question is whether conscription is the best, the most thorough, tho iairest, the most effectual method for dealing with an unseen and unprecedented situation, which has been forced upon us by this world war. It is well to keep this view steadily in sight. It will explain how to-day, "in the fell clutch of circumstance," some of the strongest advocates of conscription are people who in the normal times of the past have been its fiercest opponents. They may oppose it ■again y/Lcn the world has regained its equilibrium. At present they see in it the only thorough remedy for a situation that has become impossible. " Worker " replies to a previous letter by W. D. Mason, which, unfortunately, cannot come within the scope of this review. According to "Worker," Mr Mason is "in. favour of national service, which, as interpreted him, means Socialism." Therein "Worker" agrees with him, but he very pertinently asks what Mr Mason proposes to do if lie does not get his full measure of Socialism. It is a very pertinent question, and) as it is certain that Mr Mason will never see his Socialistic ideals realised, his reply, if at all straight, should be interesting. If he cannot, as he would wish, get the wealth of the country pooled or " socialised" (it is contemptible pedantry to split dialectic hairs at this time}, would he turn deaf ears to the cry of the Empire and the call of the blood? Would he see with callous heartlessness our New Zealand boys fail and fall in the fight for lack of necessary reinforcements—and all because a dubious political nostrum of his has not found popular acceptance ? Most true Britons realise tho gravity of the situation. They know that the cry is for men, not money. The financial burden can be borne, and, financially, Germany has been routed long ago. The man, therefore, who while our race is calling for men stops to institute a trifling discussion over questionable political ideals places himself in a curious position. A greater charity than he deserves may contemptuously dismiss him as one who " is sair haudden doon by the bubbly-jock " of rabid political bigotry. It is reasonable to ask, as "Worker" does, how Mr Mason proposes to raise the necessary forces here without conscription. Voluntary enlistment has admittedly broken down. What is to replace it? Utere is no d.lficulty in getting the money. There is difficulty in getting the men. How do the anti-conscriptionists propose to meet the difficulty? '^Worker" further stresses the point that conscription would fall equally and equitably on all classes—a point Mr Mason disputes. In this matter common sense is altogether with "Worker." To say, as Mr Mason does, that conscription will not bring in the wealthy farmers' eons is a valueless, unsupported assertion, which has the further worthlessness of being a prophecy from a man who is no prophet. Only a simpleton can be gulled by such an assertion as this. Conscription, if adopted in New Zealand, will operate just as in other 'countries, and will fall on all alike. To argue otherwise indicates a bankruptcy of reasonable argument, a desperate lack of any plausible excuse for opposition. It is very possible that the wealthy farmers' sons who have got on Mr Mason's nerves are included in the black army of 34,000 shir-kers who have deliberately declared they will not do their duty. How does Mr Mason propose to deal .with that legion of poltroons? Conscription propounds a drastic measure. So far it is the only proposal in the field, and to "dream dreams and see visions" of its possible ineffectiveness, as Mr Mason has done, is not sufficient to damn it. What does he propose instead of conscription? If he does not get conscription of wealth, which our people are not orving for, will he, like a sulky boy, refuse to have conscription O; men, which they decidedly want? "Worker" manages to put. a few questions ■which Mr Mason may find leisure to answer. What, ho asks, is Mr Mason himself doing to provide the help for our boys at the front who aro so sadly in need of help? He has not helped recruiting; rather, indeed, does he do nis little best—perhaps unwittingly, and fortunately it is so little as to be quite negligible—to retard recruiting by providing for the shirker excuses and apologies, for dereliction of duty. And " Worker " says, truly enough, that tho only men who Vfear conscription are the shirkers. That being so, there should be no hesitation in proceding with a measure all fair men approve.

" National Service" deals with letters against conscription written by " No Conscription end " Anti-Humbug." " No Conscription" had made the assertion, which is one of the stock of hackneyed arguments of the opponents of conscription, that conscription had been responsible for the war. Such generalisations; and unsupported pronouncements should all be dismissed with contempt. By tortuous corkscrew reasoning it may be shown that Germany's great military power' came by the way of conscription, and that, lacking that power, there would have been no war. It is quite as reasonable to affirm that the British navy was responsible for the war — invincible navy, which ruled the Seven Seas, and provoked in Germany a passion of envy and jealousy, which ultimately broke into the flame of war. But such an affirmation would be the conversion of tho argument that conscription caused tho war into a reductio ad absurdum. "National Service" counters also " Anti-Humbug's " dictum that " Government has no right to force men to fight. Government does not own us. Every man owns. himself." Such a declaration betrays an absolute ignorance of tho structure of states and nationalities. To hold that a man may live in a State, enjoy all its benefits and privileges, and in the hour of need clod<je and shirk his duties and responsibilities is a purely anarchical doctrine. It would reduce ordered government to chaos and ruin. It would be the end of all things for civilised states. Just as a man mu3t pay his lawful debts, so must he pay, when called upon, the most imperative and inevitable debt of all—his debt to his race and his country. Only cranks dispute that wholesome doctrine. " National Service " also touches on another popular argument in the stock of the unti-conscriptionist. This is that conscription would shackle the workers hero "with the fetters of Prussian militarism." Now, let a little horse-sense be applied to this fallacy! Prussian militarism, that thing accursed, is what it is in its strength and endurance by reason of conscription. The world is determined to exterminate that curse, and if to kill it more speedily and remorselessly it be necessary to fight it with its own weapon of conscription, a sane-clear-visioned world will not hesitato to use that weapon. To bludgeon a ruffian into submission does not imply that the bludgeon thereafter must be tho chief weapon of defence. A ' poison is often administered to counteract and neutralise another poison. So that if conscription appears to be the most effective method of raising- the necessary quotas of men, effectively and equitably, no other reason can justify its rejection.' So much for tho arguments of the advocates of conscription. Turn wo now to Mr Mason and " M. 5.," who speak against it. In his introductory paragraph Mr Mason seems more concerned about his own personal dignity and amour propre than about the greater issues involved. But the public is not at all interested in these personal trivialities. One amazing personal experience of Mr Mason's is worth setting down again: " I do not kuow a single opponent of compulsory training who has proved 'slacker' or 'shirker' in this crisis." That is so unique an experience, so contradicted and belied by the experience of most people that they may be pardoned at first for thinking that Mr Mason's acquaintance with people and their ideas during the. present crisis must be very limited and circumscribed. Or they may remember —and it explains all satisfactorily—that his ideas of " shirker " and " slacker" are very peculiar. Tho man who to all the world is a shirker appears to him to be a very admirable patriot. Then Mr Mason strains the point that the public have not been consulted about con-

KCription, and ho would first havo a referendum. l'eopio may lie pardoned for believing that the object is net so much to gut tho opinion of tho people oil an important mutter us to cast another obstacle in tho patli of conscription. Presumably, Mr Mason would apply his pet nostrum of conscription of wealth without any referendum. Why raise it then for conscription of men? i The public know why well enough. Parliu/i nvent lies no mandate for such a measure, ho declares. _ That is admitted. Parliament i has no specific mandate for such a measure ■ any more than it has to formulate and carry through other measures for the common weal of Now Zealand nnd the Empire. i Whence eame the mandate to raise or send men from New Zealand to the war at all? To reduce our Parliament to tho level of a delegates' meeting would bo to destroy for ever th•> independence and healthy individualism of our most democratic Chamber. Mr Mason's lengthy and laboured argument as to his unimpeachable accuracy in citing C'hiozza Money as a witness for his side is quite irrelevant ; a mere side issue, . to prove that Mr Mason is an expert and infallible dialectician. The point is neither here nor there, and every man, including Mr Mason, can have his own opinion as to Mr Mason's abilities. _It is when ono reaches tho amazing obiter dictum, "tho sons of tho wealthy men, landowners, and farmers, would not be forced to serve under conscription," that a caveat must be entered against such pernicious nonsense, designed, if any design it bears, to obscure the issue by stirring up the witches' cauldron of class prejudices and hatreds. And following this declaration comes a prophecy of the failure of conscription if it is adopted. But is the prophet to bo trusted'! Is tho prophecy of any value, or does he belong 10 tno tribe ol soothsayers who are always ready to pour their prophecies along the avenues which their pet predilections follow? Mr Mason, as political mentor, requires to be much discounted ; as a propnet he deserves to be lauglied out ot court—and prooabiy he gets his deserts. He tells us how the French Government, by means of conscription, mobilised to prevent a railway strike. That may or may not be correct; but what sane New Zealander •will to-day affirm that he should refuse to help our own hoys at the front, our race, and our Empire, by conscription lest at some future time a strike might be prevented or broken here, as, Mr Aiason affirms, was the caso in France? Besides, it is perfectly well understood that if conscrip- I tion be adopted now it will be only for the period ot tne war. Thereafter in the spacious days of peace the country may determine whether what was adopted for a pressirigly temporary crisis wni in future be incorporated into a permanent polity of tho State. " M. S." may be very briefly dismissed. The points he endeavours to make will, upon examination, be found to tell against the very case they should support. Thus,,, to show the effectiveness of voluntary enlistment, he' points to the Old Country, where, under that system, four million men have been raised in 16 months. But he does not point out that to put New Zealand on the sume plane there should have been raised here in that period some c 6,000 men. But half that number has not been raised, and voluntary enlistment has admittedly broken down. What then? Does "M. S." think we have readied the end? Has he no remedy and does he want New .Zealand to reply at this crisis, in a cowardly fatalism, "I can do no more"? In instituting comparisons with the Old Country it is only just and fair that conditions in both countries should be equalised, but that is a case the anti-eon-scriptionists seem most anxious to ignore or avoid. Again, "M. 5.," with the wisdom of an oracle dogmatically declares that militarism will not crush militarism. ''Civil and political liberty only can crush militarism." But how often has such liberty come down the blood-stained path of battle and victory! Tho civil and political liberty of Europe was born in the mighty travail of the French Revolution: Again, would "M. S." have met tho march of the German inkers by mere statutes of "civil and political liberty?" In the name of commonsense let there be an end to such flatulent phrasemongering, masquerading as reason and argument. It is unnecessary to waste words over the foolish assertions that the adoption of conscription here would mean the introduction of Prussian militarism. For it is mere foolishness. It would be quite impossible for a system so alien to the British temper to survive in the most democratic of our Imperial States, unless necessity demanded it. But if there be such a. necessity, as nine-tenths of the people of to-day believe, it is equally characteristic of the British race to adopt the most thorough measures, heedless, if, in doing so, some hoary and antiquated formulae, evolved .in other days and circumstances, and, never tested by tho conditions which rule t'o-day, should crash down into everlasting smash. The summing up may stand at that. It need not be denied that the advocates of conscription have the better of the argument, largely, perhaps, because they grapple with the subject as practical men, while' their opponents deal with it like dilettante theorists. One point nmst also, ba made clear here lest misapprehension arise. Mr Mason occupies so much space just because .the other correspondents referred to his previous letters, and his own letter had also to be reviewed. It would be quite unkt him labour under the delusion that he has got 'so much attention on account of his importance or the weight of his declarations, though, judging from his interminable verbosity on all subjects under the sun, it is an illusion he mav possibly entertain. It is, further, very probable that he will seize with avidity upon this as a peg upon which to hang another of his dreary discourses, but for "Judex" the summing up is ended, and the jury of the people can take the case, as the Scottish courts have it, to " avizandum."—l am *' •' Judex. '