CURRENT COMMENT

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXX, Issue 191, 21 August 1935, Page 8

CURRENT COMMENT

OF TOPICAL MOMENT A LATE CAPTAIN DREYFUS Alfred Dreyfus was one of those rare persons whose lot it is to become a legend while they live. For some the destiny is a happy one. For others it is a tragic fortune. The Dreyfus case wrote into history one of the world's most touching human documents. It turned out in the end a shameful indictment of military bureaucracy. It stands to-day a timely warning to an age inclined to lessen the democratic emphasis on the sacredness of individual rights before the law. Young Captain Dreyfus was arrested on suspicion of treason in 1894. At an illegally conducted trial he

was sentenced to life imprisonment on what since has become known as I Devil's Island. His disgrace had severe social and economic consequences for his family and relatives. Evidence that might have freed him went unexamined. Men who might ; have saved him remained silent. Years later his innocence was established. He was restored to the army with honours. After his retirement he volunteered his services to aid France in the World War and commanded one of the Paris forts. The Dreyfus case is too long to detail here. But some explanation of his persecution can be offered. Dreyfus, was the first Jewish officer to achieve the distinction of connection with the general staff. It is widely conceded to-day that an element of anti-Semitism played a part in his arraignment. His conviction may also have been a convenient cover for someone else’s guilt. The whole tragic and shameful episode was possible because of two factors in its disposition. One was racial prejudice. The other was tolerance of something less than strict legality on the part of those entrusted with the case. Both these influences are pressing on the public concept of justice to-day. Their too probable effects on perfectly innocent people are well illustrated in the life of Alfred Dreyfus. COMMON SENSE COCK AGE People of civilised standards will think none the worse of Major Clement R. Attlee for refusing to fight a duel with the Italian editor who challenged him because he criticised Il Duce's policy in Abyssinia. That an army man should treat so cavalierly a theatrical summons to combat is a reminder that, after all, this is 1 935. and such things as duelling were supposed to have gone j out of fashion long ago. There was I nothing to be said in its favour, beyond the fact that it was picturesque and a boon to novelists. Certainly the peaceful modern Englishman sees no reason why the quaint old custom should be revived. Nevertheless, Major Attlee's refusal shows anything but a lack of courage. To publicly defy old traditions of “honour." because they are silly, . requires the real courage of intellig- | ence daring to assert itself. How I obviously sensible and without dramatics was the Englishman's reply! Instead of naming a second, he pointed out: “The fact of your proving superior in armed combat is quite ■ irrelevant to the issue of the propriety of your Government's action in Abyssinia.” . And with these shining words Major Attlee, like a Knight of Common Sense, scored a touch on the whole system of using armed force on any scale to decide any question. — u Christian Science Monitor.”

IMITATION NORMAL AAfONG CHILDREN "How many people have original ideas? You can’t expect sixth standard children to have the same principles of literary honour that actuate older people.”—Air A. C. Afaxwell. "Children learn to speak by i.mitatiing their mothers and they learn ■to write essays by imitation, too.” —Air A, R. Blank.

These comments made by Mr Maxwell, a retired headmaster, and Mr Blank, headmaster of the Fendalton School, respectively, were based on, Dr F. Birkinshaw’s remark that “literary plagiarism seems to be a standard vice o? ISandards V. and VI.” Dr Birkinshaw was examiner for the annual school essay competition of the Returned Soldiers’ Association, and his comments were reported recently. “We look for a certain amount of originality in/ Standards V. and VI,” said Mr Blank, “but, as far as

Anzac Day is concerned, children can only be expected to write about what they have read. At any rate, that’s the way I learned to wri-o. These essays for which prizes are oflered. arc very much in the hands of the people who instruct the children. They are not an indey of the child’s capabilities but of the teacher’s. This applies ic all subjects, especially with young children., It applied in years gone by, and I expect it will continue to apply in the future. There is something in what Dr Birkinshaw says, but we must expect that sort of thing.’’ "I see no objection to a child reproducing a thought that he has come across, but it should be expressed in his own language,” said Mr Maxwell. ‘‘l don’t) believe in children being allowed to be guilty of plagiarism. I would sooner have the poorest of essay that was original work than an elaborate thing taken from other sources.

"The whole subject of essay-writ-ing.” Air Maxwell continued, "is to find out what is in the child’s mind. I think that so far as many essay subjects are concerned, it is much better if the subject is not announced till the moment the essay is to be written. This doesn’t apply to all subjects; some must be read up beforehand.

Mr Maxwell said that Dr Birkinshaw’s criticism imputed a certain amount of dishonesty in the children for not having original ideas. How many people asked Mr Maxwell, ever had originial ideas? All people were largely influenced by their reading. To get rid of using other people’s thoughts and language completelv was impossible, though it could be managed to a certain extent by not announcing the subject of an essay beforehand.