BRITISH JUSTICE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17319, 20 May 1918, Page 2

BRITISH JUSTICE.

TO THE EDITOB. ' Sib,—ln your issue to-day Mr John Lunn explains why he wrote a letter on the question of the recent sentences on three working men jn Ohristchurch and left everybody in the dark ao to his opinion on the question. Behold his explanation: "I beg to state, having coniidonco in the New Zealand Government and its administration generally, 1 feel confident that it is my duty not to seek to interfere." Now if everybody felt like Mr Lunn, nobody wotM have riused a protest. These men would have suffered unjust punishment without a public protest and the blot on British justice would be tolerated. And with such a spirit of Oriental submission to injustice we would be on the high road to vassalage Mr Lunn evidently felt that something more than his confession of faith in the Government was called for. so he added- "I do not admit that Mr Paul is a better friend to these men than I am, for, after all is said and done, it is a cfuestion of method " Mr Lunn s method" of righting the wrong is not to seek to interfere " Apparently a miscarriage of justice matters nothing. Mr Lunn has eonfidoncc in the Government, and it is his duty " not to eeek to interfere." The numerous public protests and the petition of Christcburch citizens will be of much moro value in rightinsr this wrong than Mr Lunn's "method" Mr Lunn is pleased to say ho is '"one of the working class." I understand Mr Lunn has been an employer for a number of years. Be that as it may, I well remember Mr Lunn taking exception in your columns to my comment in the Industrial World on Sir L. Chiozza Money's case for high wages. Mr Lunn was pleased then to refer t-o the case for high wages as "on evident economic fallacy." If M r T,, 7rm was "one of the working ekes" on W wages he wold perhaps not so quickly have seen an evident economic fallacy "in hieh ?n agC if; T° workers haVG too many friends like Mr Lunn. Mr Lunn would not be hanoy unless he spoke his piece about, conscription. But most people know my attitude towards conscription. Before conscription became law in this country I advocated real national eervice— that each should serve his countrv and that none should be allowed to exploit it. When conscription of men onlv came T emphasised the injustice of it—certain fit mjm called on to make sunreme sacrifice whilo many others were profiteering to such an extent as unduly to raise the cost of living even to soldiers' dependents Mv policy would enable the country to give fuller ficrnco than conscription "ever can Certain political opponents of mine are anxious that, tho people should only rememboi the truth my opposition to conscription of men only. My opponents do not want to acknowledge that my policy means organised and usuir the whole strength of the country. Surolv tho whole is stronger than a part. Even " Ovia " will acknowledge that some day. The Australian referendi'im on conscription is etill troubling Mr Lunn. He complains of vast clouds of fog. And yet the facts aro clear enough for a city eoune.ilior to understand them. Very few' Australians knew that- the New Zealand Labour Party had sent a manifesto fsiimcd by myself) to Australia on the question. A majority of over 70.000 voted against, conscription in 1916. when the New Zealand Labour Party advised Australia to vote against oonscription. A year later another referendum was held. The New Zealand Labour Party sent no rrianifesto. and T siid nothing. The majority ng<Sinst conscription leaped to well ©vor 160,000.-1 am, nto. , J.T, Pae*