FINAL SAY WITH CABINET

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 713, 12 July 1929, Page 1

FINAL SAY WITH CABINET

Prime Minister on Objectors LABOUR MEMBERS’ APPEAL (THE SUN'S - Parliamentary Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Today. A DEPUTATION from the New Zealand Labour Party car ried the ease of the conscientious objectors, Messrs. A. M. Richards and Alex Miller, a stage further today, when it waited on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. M. Wilford, asking that the Government respect the conscientious beliefs of the individual and not insist upon the sentences being served. The Prime Minister promised to bring their views before Cabinet next Tuesday, but refused the request that the execution of the warrants be suspended in the meantime.

The Leader of the Labour Party, < Mr. H. E. Holland, pointed out that i the young men were in a difficult position in so far as the Church did not 1 take up a pronounced attitude on com- t pulsory military training, hut it did ( hold that the conscience rights of the ( individual should be respected. “The position is,” he said, “that the 3 Defence Department does not recognise the right of individual religious conscience. I would like to make that a strong point. The department only recognises the collective conscience of a church.” Mr. Wilford: That is not so. Mr. Holland: If it were not so, the department would not press for penalties in the case of the individual. Mr. Wilford: There must be good faith. Mr. Holland: But here you have two clean-living young men, both sons of well-known Presbyterian ministers, and there can be no question about their bona fides. It would be a gross mis-statement to say that they were not acting conscientiously. Mr. Wilford: Three magistrates said they were not. Mr. Holland: 1 do not care what the magistrates have said. I think it is a deplorable thing that men with conscientious beliefs should be thrown into prison because of their beliefs. Mr. R. Semple said that it was a monstrous thing that a murderer who escaped the gallows was allowed to retain his civil rights once he had served his sentence, yet two keen young Divinity students were put in gaol and deprived of their civil rights for 10 years when their only offence was that they had remained true to their religious convictions. Mr. Holland: It would pay the Defence Department and the Government to respect the beliefs of Richards and Miller and let them be free from training instead of making martyrs of them. INTERPRETING THE LAW So long as the Government laid down the general line of principle which was recognised as the law, he did not think they had any right to quarrel with the magistrates. Magistrates were only applying the law. as they found it. The interests of the country would be served far better if the Government recognised the rights of the two young men, who believed that their duty to Christ convinced them that they could not undertake military work, and allowed them to continue with the religious work in which they were engaged. Mr. Holland said he understood that Richards and Miller were to have | been arrested yesterday. It was a I shame that they should be herded with professional criminals, as no doubt they would be. Even if they were kept apart from the other prisoners, they would be in a prison atmosphere. “It is too late in the history of the world,” said Mr. Holland, “to take up the attitude that was taken up in the days long ago and penalise men because of their religious beliefs. I firmly believe that these boys are as conscientious as it is possible for any ‘ livng man to be. I want to make a ; plea that they will not be sent to gaol ; or deprived of their civil rights.” [ If the Government insisted that ‘ they should go to gaol, a feeling of revulsion would be created through- ' out the country. Mr. W. J. Jordon said that Richards and Miller were actuated by what l they thought was right. There were “ men in the Church of equal discretion ’ to the magistrates. I Mr. McCombs: They are a better judge when it comes to conscience. Mr. Wilford: But surely the magistrates should he the judge, and not the ministers? Mr. Jordan said that personally he was not opposed to military training, but he contended that it was an

offence not to respect the conscientious beliefs of the individual.

Mr. W T . E. Barnard (Napier) said the \ law placed an unfair burden on magis- i trates when it called upon them to r consider the claims of conscientious i objectors. It seemed to him that it t was a very difficult question for the < magistrate to decide whether a man was a conscientious objector or not. PROMISE OF CONSIDERATION < “Represetnations you have made ' on this problem.” said Sir Joseph W T ard, "are made after the decision - of the Minister in charge has already \ been given. I cannot tell you that . we will reverse the decision of the Minister, but I can promise you that the question will be considered by Cabinet. We will go into the various i aspects of it, and when we come to a conclusion I shall be glad to advise you. It is a peculiar case.” “I admit that the only thing that strikes me on the spur of the moment is that, if the decision of the Minister is reversed, the whole question of the Defence system in this country will be thrown into the melting-pot. There is that danger.” Mr. Semple: There is, of course, the possibility of a revision of the sentences. The Prime Minister: It is customary for that to be carried out by the Justice Department. I have my own opinions about the case, but, as the Minister has given his decision, it is only fair that any revision should be considered by the whole of his colleagues. Your representations will be put side by side with the facts the Minister had before him. We will come to a decision some time next week, probably Tuesday. Mr. Jordan: In the meantime these young men will be imprisoned. Mr. Holland: Could not the execution of the warrant he held up? Mr. Wilford: I have no power to do that. Mr. Holland: Somebody must have. Mr. Wilford: There have been cases where the Governor-General has Intervened. Mr. Jordan: Would you request the Governor-General to exercise his power? The Prime Minister: I will bring the matter before Cabinet at its next meeting. Mr. Jordan: The boys may be in prison now. The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact a day or two will not harm them. Mr. Jordan: It would have been better if we had come to you, sir, in the first place. Mr. Holland: That is where we made the mistake. The Prime Minister: Yes, it would have been better. I promise you there will be no delay.