COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

Otago Witness, Issue 3823, 21 June 1927, Page 7

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

STUDENT’S PACIFIST ATTITUDE.

PRESBYTERY’S RULING SOUGHT.

AUCKLAND, June 14. The Auckland Presbytery was called upon at its meeting to-night again to declare its attitude on the debateable question of compulsory military training. After a discussion, which was carried over from the afternoon to the evening session, the Presbytery adopted a icsolution expressing the view that a change from compulsory to voluntary military training should be brought about by pressure of public opinion, and not by a refusal to obey the law. The question was raised by a letter from Mr A. M.‘Richards, a student for the ministry, who has come in conflict with the law by refusing to undergo military training. He sought the Presbytery’s support for his attitude. “As one of your students,” Mr Richards wrote, “I am writing to inform you that I am cited to appear in the Magistrate’s Court to-morrow, June 15, owing to my refusal to take part in preparations for war. I have been largely influenced in making this refusal by. utterances of several of yourselves, and especially by the Assembly’s resolution on the matter. If, as the church has declared, military training is wrong in principle, it is obviously wrong to take any part in such training.” The writer went on to say teat he intended basing his plea on the Assembly’s resolution, and asked for a statement from the Presbytery of its attitude to war and preparations for war. Air Richards was invited to state his position, and said that the Assembly's resolution declared that war and preparations for war were wrong in principle. He was certain to be asked in court what his religious beliefs were, and to what church he belonged, and the name of the Presbyterian Church would be brought into it. He thought that some statement from the Presbytery was almost necessarv. “Whether we agree or disagree with Mr Richards's views,” said the Rev. D C. Herron, ‘‘we must all admire his courage.” Those views, he said, were not those of the speaker. Men laid down their lives in the Great War, believing that somehow they were making a permanent contribution to the peace of the world.

The Rev. W. L. Marsh said that if Mr Richards cited the General Assembly in support of his attitude, he would be doing the church a great injustice, and it would require to be repudiated in the name oi the church. The Assembly had not said that compulsory military training was wrong in principle. If it had felt that it would have called on its young men to refuse to undergo training, and no Asscmbly would dare do that. “There is no bone in my body that has not been crushed and bruised in war,” said the Rev Angus Macdonald, speaking with some emotion. “I loathe and detest and abominate war. Nine years of my short life has been spent on active service, but while the law of the land remains as it is we must. not support the student or anyone else in breaking that law. Mr Richards must go forward his own name, and not in that of 11 ? church.

The advice that if Mr Richards felt he must take up the pacifist and Quaker position, then be must follow his conscience, was given by the Rey. J. Lamb Harvey. At the evening session the Rev. D. O. Herron submitted the following resolution: “While admiring Mr Richards’s courage and sympathising with his desire to witness his conscientious protest againt compulory preparation for war, tlie Presbytery believes that the mind of our church, as expressed in the resolution advocating a return to the voluntary system, of military training passed by the last General Assembly, is that this reform should be brought about by the pressure of public opinion, causing cu r legislators to alter the law in this wav. so as to bring our country more into line with the spirit of the League of Nations, and not by .refusal to obey the law while it continues to exist.’’

The Rev. B. Hutson said Mr Richards had learned only that afternoon that the Assembly’s resolution did not cover his case. It was open to him to tell the court that he had misunderstood the attitude of his church, and then the case would drop. The Rev. M. Richards said he believed there was a conscience clause in the Act which his son could plead. Mr. Richards was given permission to 'explain his position further. He said he

could not leave his church out of it, because he was bound to be asked about his religious convictions. He still felt that the Assembly’s resolution, if carried out to its logical conclusion, did support his attitude, because it condemned compulsory military training. He took this stop to arouse public opinion on the matter, and that was the only reason he took it.

That the young man had mistaken the attitude of his church, and should follow Mr Hutson's advice was the view expressed by Mr T. Macmillan. Regret at Mr Richards's last utterance was expressed by the Rev. M. Miller. It seemed to him that Mr Richards had given his case away by saying he had no conscientious objections to military training. In replying at the close of the discussion Mr Herron said they all felt that intensive preparation for war was the greatest disservice to the cause of peace. 'The motion was carried without dissent.

DIVINITY STUDENT DEFAULTS. AUCKLAND, June 15. An application for exemption from military training was made in the Police Court bv Alan Morgan Richards, the divinity student who at Tuesday’s meeting of Auckland Presbytery unsuccessfully sought support of his attitude in refusing to undergo training. Richards was charged with failing to attend drill. Sergeantmajor Landman, for the Defence Department, said that accused had been transferred to Auckland in March, 1926. He had previously been at the Hamilton High School, and it was understood he then aspired to become a non-commissioned officer in the school cadets. After he had been transferred to Auckland he had written to the department asking to be transferred to another company. He did not attend drill, and after several notices had been sent him he wrote stating that he did not intend to attend as it was* against his principles. He had done no drill since then. Mr W. R. M'Kean, SAI.: What is your religious belief? Accused: 1 am a Presbyterian. The Magistrate: It is news to me that the Presbyterian Church takes this view. The Accused replied that it was the logical conclusion of a resolution of the Presbyterian General Assembly passed last November which had declared that military training was wrong in principle. If it were wrong in principle it was obviously wrong to take part in it. The Magistrate said that exemption had been granted to members of a certain church whose teaching was against military training, but not to members of the Presbyterian Church. Accused: I do not stand so much on the opinion of my church as on my own belief that military training is uu-Chris-tian.

The Accused added that he thought war amt unfed to wholesale murder, and that” he would be failing in his Christian duty if he did not oppose the preparation for it 'He based his belief on the command to de no murder, and held that military tra-niug was the preparation to do murder.

binder cross-examination the accused stated that when he was at the high school he had not intended to go into the church. He had not asked the Presbytery for ns support, but for its views, and the resolution it had came l on Tuesday was what he had expected, although not what he had hoped for. The Magistrate: You think y: u are wiser thar. they? The Accused: In this matter, yes. I stand to my own conscience. The Magistrate: The State has placed upon you certain duties. 1 hope you do not intend to persist in this attitude. Accused: I do.

The Magistrate: You are young yet, and your ideas may change. You had better go home and think it over. Accused: I feel I must obey my own conscience before any external law.

The Magistrate: You will find you will have to obey an external law as long as you live in a civilised country. He added that he would not impose a heavy penalty on this occasion, but if the accused appeared before the court again he would have to be dealt with differently. A fine of £1 was imposed, the accused being allowed 14 days in which to pay.

The annual meeting of the New Zealand Pig Breeders’ Association resolved that the association representing the purebred pig breeders of the Dominion strongly supports the scheme advocated for applying the Paterson scheme to the export of pork and bacon from New Zealand, and approves of a board being established. The association urges the Government to give the necessary legislative power ■ this session.