TEACHERS AND THE BALLOT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 964, 14 March 1917, Page 6

TEACHERS AND THE BALLOT.

To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —I see by this evening's paper that exemption from military service has been granted to a teacher in a local Roman Catholic private school, because he has taken vows. I strongly suspect that the decision was influenced by the fact that a Wellington board had done the same, and it would be inadvisable for two boards to act differently. No one need be surprised if the public discontent rapidly increases because of the unjust discrimination that is being made. The board will refuse to grant exemption to public school teachers if they happen to ask for it, because they have taken no vows! The Marist Brother in question appealed on the ground of public interest—it was necessary to keep the private schools going (and women teachers are unable, or forbidden, to take positions in these schools to relieve the men, etc.), but the board brushed aside this ground, and held that the only claim the brother had to consideration was that he had taken a life-long vow! Your report devotes 10 lines to the Bishop's defence on the ground of public interest, and only a line and a-half to the fact that the Marist Brothers objected to bear arms because of their vows. What apears to the casual reader to be the slightest

'evidence in the Bishop's mind is eagerly seized by the board as the most important evidence! I But what appears to me to be the I most extraordinary position of ail is i the reported speech of the chairman of the board. He said: "It was necj essary for the Military Service ! Boards to act in conformity wiih one [another, and even if it were against J his own opinion he would get into line with other boards." Now this is a very serious matter. It means that if the Wellington board made an unfair distinction by granting a private, sectarian teacher exemption and refusing it to a State ' teacher, then the Canterbury Hoard must follow suit. And if all other (boards do likewise we arrive at the extraordinary position that if one ' small group of three men on a board I decides upon a question of this kind, then that decision is a precedent whh-h must be followed by all other boards. The very words of the chairman of the Canterbury board, "even if it were against his own opinion," seem to show pretty clearly that he doubted the justice of doing what he did in granting an adjournment sine die. j Now, what will be the position of ja State school teacher who applies jfor exemption, or for an adjournment of his appeal sine die, on the J ground of public interest, supported ,by his statement that though the tenets of his religion do not expressly forbid the bearing of arms, yet he conscientiously objects to lighting, and thinks he can serve the State betjter by remaining at home? ] do not jknow of such a case—it is merely a supposition. Can the board justly dismiss his appeal? Again, an Israelite appealed the ! other day because his religious beliefs were contrary to the bearing of ! arms, but his appeal was dismissed, j because, although he may have taken vows equally as strong and equally jas lasting as those taken by the Marist Brothers, yet he had not taken vows in a constitutional way, and he had no Bishop to appeal to! j These inconsistent judgments of I the Military Service Boards are too glaring to pass by. They involve in many cases great hardship, hearti breakings, and financial loss, if not jruin. Are we in the hands of an inconsistent military power? The | general public will not stand by to see its State schools bled of teachers j while private sectarian schools conj tinue on the even tenor of their way :untouched. The public may not demand that all Marist Brothers should go into camp, but it will certainly demand, and that in no uncertain voice, that at least a proportion of these teachers should do their duty to the Empire. Even if it is only to show that they have some love of country in them, and to save themselves from the contemptuous glances and criticisms of their fellow citizens, they ! would do well to act the part of .patriots who sacrilice all, if need be, jfor their country's welfare.—l am, EQUITY. Christchurch, March 13, 1917.