THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17092, 25 August 1917, Page 6

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE.

It may be considered at once a merit and a defect of compulsory military service that it applies the'same rule to all members of the I'irst Division apart from their circumstances. Unless they ask for exemption on convincing grounds all who are passed as fit by ,the medical examiners must prepare to enter camp, and settle up their affairs accordingly. Clearly, this process is particularly liable to entail sacrifice upon the man whose means of livelihood has been a business of which he may not be able to dispose at other than a considerable loss. But very much worse in every respect is the position of the man who, having disposed of his business at a considerable sacrifice in order to enter camp after being passed as fit by the military medical authorities, finds that as the result of a subsequent examination he is not considered after all to come up to the military standard, and that he is at a loose end onco more as a civilian, without either a business to go back to or its monetary equivalent. Yet such is the position of the reservist whose case was ventilated in the Lower House on Thursday by Mr Walker. The arresting feature about the case—not that it is singular in this respect-*-is that the reservist should have been first , passed as fit for active service, despite his statement that he suffered from a chronic ailment which was calculated to render him unfit, and that a later examination, conducted under the same conditions as 'the original examination, nullified the verdict of the former tribunal by classing .him as C2. While no reasonable person expects infallibility on the part of the medical examiners in their judgment of the physical capacity of the reservist brought before them, it is manifest that in this particular case a blunder—an avoidable blunder—was made which, through no fault of his own, has involved the reservist in 1083 and difficulty. The Government has a plain responsibility in the circumstances which it should not seek to evade. Sir James Allen admitted that the Government would have, to consider the claim which this man was making for compensation, but he. added that if compensation were ■ paid the case of every man in like circumstances would have to be considered. The Minister seems alarmed at the prospect, but the public will desire to know why the case of every man in like circumstances should not be considered, as a matter of course and as a matter of right. The Government must be prepared to do justice and pay for the mistakes of its officers. This is a- principle which seems unassailable. Moreover, there is a distinct fallacy in Sir James Allen's argument that, if he had gone to the front, the man would still - have lost his business. Apparently the suggestion/ is that, as the reservist would have lost his business in any case, he has no particular cause for complaint. The Minister strangely overlooks the fact that if the reservist had actually been sent away on active service he would have received his soldier's pay and enjoyed the other advantages that attach to participation in active service. The truth of the matter is that the Government has no legitimate defence to a claim for compensation in a case of this kind. It is satisfactory to know that the local Soldiers' and Dependents' Welfare Committee, with a full knowledge of the circumstances of the case, is determined that, so far as its efforts will avail, justice shall be done, '