MILITARY TRAINING.

Otago Witness, Issue 3870, 15 May 1928, Page 16

MILITARY TRAINING.

DEPUTATION TO MINISTER OF DEFENCE. THE CHURCH AND THE LAW. WELLINGTON, May 9. A deputation representing the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand asked Mr F. J. Rolleston (Minister of Defence) to-day to reverse the magisterial decisions made in respect to certain Presbyterians who have been fined recently for their refusal as conscientious objectors to undergo military training. The Minister emphasised that he was Unable to sit in judgment on questions »f fact decided by magistrates, and he declined to act as requested. In JV t , roducing the deputation, the Rev. Dr Gibb pointed out that four applications by Presbyterians for exemption from military training had been turned down recently. They had appealed previously to the Minister in respect to one case • that of Mr Richards—whom they knew conscientiously would never accept military training and inevitably would have to go to gaol unless he were given relief. They had felt that they had a strong case when they approached the Minister last ' October, but it was even stronger now, for the General Assembly had since expressed its opinion against compulsory military training by 150 votes to 46—a ■till larger majority than before. He pointed out that in some cases magistrates

had given decisions contrary to that of the Auckland magistrate. On the basis of the amendment of 1912, which enabled conscientious views to be respected, he contended that the law did not allow a magistrate the pcrogative of suggesting to objectors some alternative form of SerY* ce >. such as the Boy Scouts or the St. John Ambulance. Air Rolleston: Surely he would be entitled to suggest it by way of testing their bona fides? I should say that to serve in the St. John Ambulance is a most Christian thing. Dr Gibb: If, as an objector by conscience, I were forced to serve in it I would still feel I was in the clutches of this thing to which I take conscientious objection.” The Church felt there was a failure to administer justice. The individual liberty of the conscientious objectors should be maintained. He did not know what thej’ would do if they did not get what they wanted. They felt it. was a case of Christ versus Caesar, or of Church versus State. Air Rolleston: Do you assure me that the Presbyterian Church is behind these men who defy the law of .the country? .Dr Gibb said that he would stand behind every one of them. Air Rolleston: Would your church take the same attitude in regard to any other law of the land? Would it say that because a man objected conscientiously to other laws it would back him up in his attitude? Dr Gibb said he would need to know what the particular law was before he could answer. “ Surely,” the Alinister suggested, “if it is right in one case it is right in another.”

. Dr Gibb: The objector denies his • Lord and Alaster if he does a thing I against his conscience. If a man dis- • obeyed the law he must be prepared to take the consequences in order to honour : I his convictions. The very unanimity of • the General Assembly in the matter, he said, was profoundly significant. They ' ™ er ® being forced into the position of • Christ versus Caesar. General Young (General Officer Com- ' manding the New Zealand Forces): Would you say it is not a Christian thing to serve in the military forces? Dr Gibb said he was not a theoretical pacifist, and he did not hold that in no conceivable circumstances would he coni sent to fight. For instance, he would feel obliged to fight if there were a foreign ■ invasion. ’ General Young asked if he would back \up a conscientious objector’s refusal in ' such circumstances. Dr Gibb: Yes. Air Rolleston: What do you really want me to do. Dr Gibb: We want to turn the Act upside down. Air Rolleston: Repeal it? “That is the ultimate object.” said the speaker; “but we are here to-day appealing for the magistrate's decision to be reversed.” The Rev. R. S. Watson, who is in charge of the chaplains’ department of the church, said he had served in the war. He had come back from the war with a very strong feeling that it was natural for a man's conscience to react towards pacifism. It was not a fair thing that an objector should be obliged to do . alternative service.

Air Rolleston: That is the whole point. The attitude of the Defence Department is that a man, to prove his bona tides, must be prepared to do other work. We are satisfied if he will undertake alternative work, such as the St. John Ambulance.

Air Watson doubted the competence of a magistrate to judge a man’s bona fides. Air Rolleston said he could not direct a magistrate as to how he should judge a man’s bona fides. It was entirely for the magistrate to say. The Rev. J. H. Alackenzie said it was a mistake to think that the creed of the church bound certain young men to hold conscientious objections to military training. Only the ministers and officebearers were bound by the creed. Air Rolleston said the magistrate probably held that it was not contrary to the faith of the church that a man should serve his country, therefore he had to test his bona fides. If there were no such provision the whole system would break, down, and everyone would apply for exemption. If a man declined to accept work with the St. John Ambulance it was proof against his bona fides. The Rev. W. J. Comrie said .he would encourage everyone to take part in the defence of his country in case of need. The Presbyterian Church sought to protect the rights of individual conscientious objectors. The test of a man's bona fides was not to offer him an alternative under a Military Act.

Replying to the deputation, the Alinister said he hoped they would not think he and the department desired to act in any spirit of hostility to the church. They fully respected the opinions of the conscientious objector. He said he had read very carefully the full newspaper report of the Auckland case, and there was not a syllable to show that legal argument had been advanced proving the magistrate’s general view of the law to be wrong. If the magistrate had proceeded on the question of interpretation on an entirely wrong basis there would be legal means of having his decision reviewed. If it was a question of fact however, there was no means of having the decision reviewed. It would never do for the Alinister to sit in judgment on a question of fact decided by a magistrate, or to influence or direct a magistrate in any way. The magistrate in the present ease had declared that he wanted something more than evidence of bona fides of conscientious objection, and accordingly he had suggested alternative service. Any form of altruistic occupation would do, Air Rolleston said. He thought the church should not take up a hostile attitude to the department, which had done its best to meet them in every way. The church should not say it was going to fight the matter out and decline to agree to any form of alternative service. “ I think you might try to meet us,” he said. “We will try to meet you. and we have done so. We recognise that Richards’s case is one differing from others, but we do say that he should be able to meet us halfway, as we have done, and agree to some alternative service.” On the question of law, the Minister said, he was satisfied that the magistrate was absolutely justified in his decision. THE FOUR STUDENTS. DISCUSSION BY AUCKLAND PRESBYTERY. AUCKLAND. May 9. Four students for the Presbyterian ministry who were recently refused exemption from military training by Air Hunt. S.AL, in a statement to the Auckland Presbytery, said:—“Though alternative service must interfere with the service in which we are engaged as students of the ministry, nevertheless, if exemption from military service were granted, we would be perfectly willing to engage in services of a non-inilitary character prescribed by the Governor-General-in-Coun-'•il.” Discussion in committee occupied two hours, when it was announced that no decision had been arrived at.