THE SHIRKERS' ACT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LX, Issue 16892, 7 February 1917, Page 7

THE SHIRKERS' ACT.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —May I call public attention to the unjust working oi; Section 35 ot the Military Service Act, 1916—'popularly known as the "Shirkers' Act." The injustice that i wish especially to refer to, is in connection with the Ruscoe family, whose name was brought into such, undesirable prominence in a recent case before Wie local Court.

Tab section m question provides in di'ect that where the Minister for Defence is satisfied that a family consists of two or more brothers belonging to the First Division and not being permanently unfit for military service, he may^call them up without waiting for their names to go to the ballot.

The above family consists of four brothels, all of whom belong to the First Division. None of them had goiie to the. front, consequently they were called up under this clause, and are all held up to-the World as "shirkers." Now, in terms of. the section, could the Minister have been,, "satisfied" that these brothers were "not. permanently unfit for military service.1' Let us see.

Of the one brother I know nothing. Another has been in indifferent, health for years, during -which, time lie has been under four different doctors in VVanganui, on a considerable number of occasions. His heart and chest are and it is a common thing for vmm to leave Iris work on account of seizures that are often so bad that he cannot stand up. The proof that i am right in this statement lies in the 'tact. that. when, he was called vp } tho Military Medical Board promptly rejected nim as unlit.. Can it be said, then, that this man should have been called up under this indiscriminating clause? Of course, he has never voi■unteered for service, but we shall see it would have been all the same if he had. He well knew his medical condition, and knew perfectly well that if he had volunteered ho Avould have been rejected. He.preferred to remain siient (foolishly, it would now appear) rather than make what would have been a cheap pretence at patriotism. It is easy enough for a man to '.volunteer1 .when he is, certain of being rejected. The remaining two brothers both vol■unteered in June, 1916, two months before the Military Service. Act , was passed, and long before the enrolment of the First.Division began. At this time, one of them was not yet 21 years of age. They were both rejected as medically unfit. Can the (Minister have been "satisfied" that these men were "not permanently unfit"? Why, •all the .evidence was the. other way.! it would be interesting to know from what source the Minister received his information.'. How it happens that men are rejected at one time and accepted at another is a matter for the Defence authorities to justify. The consequence of all this is that the names of these men will not appear in the Gazette lists of those drawn under the ballot, and consequently no, "stars" will appear to inform the public that these men had already enlisted. On Saturday last I endeavoured to bring these matters to the notice of the Military Appeal Board, but was told, in eifect, that the Board was too busy to listen, and that I had better approach the •newspaper's. Hence this letter. Referring for a moment to the court case already mentioned, I would remind you that, counsel for the defendant strongly suggested that Mr Ruscoe's sister .had begged her brothers to enlist, so that she might "hold up her head amongst other girls (or something to that eifect.) lam assured .that none of his sisters has ever said anything of the kind, or indeed anything that could possibly be construed into such a statement.'' Under the circumstances, why on' earth should any such, request be made?

I trust that this letter will go some way towards removing from the public mind a wrong' impression concerning this family (an impression which 1 personally snared until. 1 was mad© acquainted with the facts), and also towards calling attention to positions that might arise under; Section 35 of the Act in question.—Yours, etc., THOS. B. SLIPPER.

P-S. —In your issue of this morning (Tuesday) you have a paragraph in which the above-mentioned ca&e appears under the name of "Ruscoe v. paJdwell." This is incorrect. Tlae police laid the information, v and Ruscoe had nothing-whatever to dd with it. — T.B.S.