MUST MILITARY TRAINING BE COMPULSORY?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18182, 15 June 1927, Page 6

MUST MILITARY TRAINING BE COMPULSORY?

PRESBYTERY CALLED ON TO DECLARE ATTITUDE. Per 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 a 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 mill- . tary training should be brought about by pressure of public opinion and not j by refusal to obey the law’. j The question was raised by a letter from Mr A. M. Richards, a student for the ministry, who has come in conflict with the law by refusing to under- | go military training. “As one of your students, ’ Mr, Richards wrote, “I am writing to in- j form vou that I am cited to appear j in the Magistrate’s Court to-morrow, i 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 3'ourselves, and especially by the assembly’s resolution on the matter. If" as the Church has declared, military training is wrong in principle, it ia obviously wrong to take any pai t in such training.” The writer went on to say that he intended basing Ins plea on the assembly’s resolution, and asked 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 Richards’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 volunteer 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 Rations, and not by refusal to obey the law while it continues to exist. ’ The Rev B. Hutson said that Air Richards had learned only that afternoon that the assembly's resolution did not cover his case. It was open. * him to tell the Court that 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 mil. tary 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. „