TERRITORIAL SYSTEM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21054, 17 June 1930, Page 14

TERRITORIAL SYSTEM.

CASE FOR ITS RETENTION. REVIVAL OF NATIONAL DEFENCE LEAGUE. (Per XJhitvd Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June Id. “ The mission of the recently revived National Defence League of New Zealand is to see that among other pressing problems of the; moment the need for adequate defence is not lost sight of on account of apathy or misunderstanding,” said Sir Andrew Russoll, Dominion president of the league, in a statement to-night.. “ The league proposes to educate people by placing the facts before them, and, having every confidence in the soundness of judgment of New Zealanders and their loyalty, it has no doubt as to the ultimate result.”

Continuing, Sir Andrew Russell states; “The league supports a universal system of military training because it believes that every man and woman owes a service to his or her country. It supports the territorial training because it believes in its cducational value and its encouragement of discipline, which is essential to law and order and public morality.” With reference, to the League of Nations, Sir Andrew Russell says -, “ If any reference to the League of Nations is necessary it may be stated at'once that the National Defence League stands firmly behind the League of Nations in the hope that it may, on the moral plane, by an open discussion of international needs and differences and by its open and wholly right condemnation of war, gradually bring about such a change in the present attitude of'nations and races towards each other that a defence league or an armed nation would become an anachronism. The Defence League holds that disarmament should follow and will follow a change of heart; not that it should precede it. In the meantime,' in view of the present' position of Europe, of India, and of the world, we want adequate, provision for the defence of New Zealand and of the Empire in case of need. Let , the League of Nations carry on the wholly essential work it is doing in the interests of mankind and let us support it. To the argument that to be armed and able to defend our liberty encourages or makes for war, the answer is that it depends on the temper and mind of the nation so armed and not on weapons or knowledge of their use,” f , After enlarging on the benefits of military training to the youth of the country Sir Andrew Russell goes on t “ Opposition to defence on the grounds of cost hardly seems a valid objection in this country when one considers how much is spent on drink, oh the totalisator, on luxury, motor cars, and on pleasure. It is impossible to say in such circumstances that there is no money left for the adequate defence of our ideals, our standard of life, and our material possessions, and to meet the obligations wo owe towards to the defence of the Empire to which we belong. The fact that every penny that can be spared is required to cope with unemployment ■ is, unfortunately, true enough; but the money spent on training, apart from .the purchase of equipment which is made overseas, does hot aggravate, but, on the contrary, relieves '■uncmploym.enf by giving employment during the years of war. The material cost of defence should fall on the shoulders of those most able to bear it. The poor pay heavily enough in any case.”