EXEMPTION FROM DRILL

Taranaki Daily News, 11 July 1929, Page 12

EXEMPTION FROM DRILL

OBJECTOR MUST BE SINCERE DUTY OF MAGISTRATES CLEAR MINISTER WILL NOT INTERFERE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, July 10. Replying to a deputation of 13 ministers of the Presbyterian Church concerning the rights of conscientious objectors to military service, the Minister of Defence, the Hon. T. M. Wilford, said; “I don’t care what the religious convictions of the man be, anyone has a right to apply for exemption Iron) military training if ho conscientiously believes he should not do it. - ; “Tho clear duty of tho magistrate in considering such applications is to ascertain by asking questions, or other means, if tho applicants are conscientiously objecting, but if he believed they are not conscientiously objecting, he would not he worthy of the name of magistrate if he granted that exemption.”

Mr. Wilford said bluntly that he did not intend to do anything in the way of interfering with the sentences passed on Richards and Miller at Auckland and, in the course of a long reply, said he thought tho deputation confused the authority -which interpreted the law with the authority which executed th® law. Not one magistrate, but three, had found these men were not conscientious objectors. . That was his position, and ho had to accept tho opinion of three magistrates, for whom he had the highest respect. Mr. Wilford pointed to certain statements elicited in the course of the hearing of the cases and traced the whole history of the objections and asked the deputation if Richards’ objection was not political rather than religious. He did not agree that it was religious. “In any case that isn’t all,” said Mr. Wilford, “because Captain Walefl asked Richards what they were objecting to, and he replied: ‘We are going to bust the Defence Act.’”

A member of the deputation asked if that reply was taken down in & reliable way.

Mr, Wilford replied that it was taken by Captain Wales, who was an absolutely straight and reliable man. ■ Tho Minister insisted that the rnagistrates and judges must be interpreter® of the law and refused to interfere, adding, however, as to the deprivation of civil rights, that it was a matter that could bo reviewed at any time. He did not propose to do so now. Part of Mr. Wilford’s reply was devoted to the difficulty of finding alternative service.' His predecessor, Mr. F. J. Rolleston, had evidently tried very hard to find some alternative form and he (Mr. Wilford)- was applying himsell to the difficult problem and was. ..going to find a solution.