MILITARY TRAINING

Southland Times, Issue 20204, 15 June 1927, Page 14

MILITARY TRAINING

ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH. VOLUNTARY SYSTEM FAVOURED. (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, June 14. The Auckland Presbytery was called upon at its meeting to-day to declare its attitude on the debatable question of compulsory military training. After the discussion which was carried over from the afternoon to the evening session, the Presbytery adopted a resolution expressing the view that a change from compulsory to voluntary military training should be brought about by pressure of public opinion and not by refusal to obey the law. The question was raised by a letter from A. M. Richards, a student for the ministry, who has come in conflict with the law by refusing to undergo military training. “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 the utterances of several of ourselves and especially by the Assembly’s resolution on the matter. 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 he intended basing his plea on the Assembly’s resolution, and asking for a statement from the Presbytery of its attitude to war and preparations for war. The Rev. C. Herron submitted the following resolution:—“While admiring Mr Richard’s courage and sympathising with his desire to witness his conscientious protest against compulsory preparation for war, the 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 pressure of public opinion, causing our legislators to alter the law in this way 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 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. The question was then raised whether Mr Richards had committed any breach of the Act. 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 step to arouse public opinion on the matter and that was the only reason he took it. The motion was carried without dissent.