PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 89, Issue 13753, 29 April 1918, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION

Is expressed "by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we b av « no responsibility. anzac day. (To the Editor.) Sir, —It is surprising that our townspeople should so far forget, more oi less, this day in the history of our Empire. Flags were conspicuous by iheir absence, the Defence Department (from whom we certainly have a light to expect the lead thereby showing the "esprit de corps" and encouragement as so much needed) licing the principal offender. So many flag poles being void of bunting gives rise to talk that is not conducive to patriotism. All these small matters, as they appear to some folk, inter alia, with allowing exemption to Seventh Day Adventists or others of a similar kidney (many ot whom are single men) and taking men with wife and child or children is a serious matter and a deterrent to good service to our King and "Country. Surely these wouldbe Christians, having God with them, should not be afraid of the enemies' bullets, etc. Let there be equity in all things, and cut out humbug, and don't be afraid to fly our true colours.—l am, It ACTIVE SERVICE. April 26, 1918.

CABLE LIES.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —As a subscriber and reader of your paper, I ask you bow I am to reconcile these two cable statements, which appeared in the news items—one to-night and the other a few weeks ago, viz., "The Americans have no time for Irish slackers," and "The American Government have exempted the Irishborn living in the United States from conscription." As we are just about to celebrate Anzac Day, it is right to remember the fact that it was two Irish regiments who were first to land at Gallipoli and carve the way for Anzacs; and, sir, it is admitted by those in command, also by those who took part in that famous landing, that had the Irish regiments not led the way there would have been no Anzac Day to celebrate. — ] I am, etc.,

J. M. MURPHY. Frankton, April 24, 1918. I.W.F. To the Editor. Sir, —I was very pleased with the suggestion of "Indignant Britisher," to deport these Seventh Day Adventists and other religious objectors to Germany, as I contend if a country is worth living in it is worth fighting for. I would also suggest that these so-called religious objectors lie compelled to wear a badge, say, "1.W.F." (".I won't Tight"). 1 think it is shameful to think we ssnd our sons to fight and protect the wives, sisters and sweethearts of these pro-German shirkers.— I am, etc., J. GRAHAM. Claudelands, April 26, 1918.

CHRISTA DELPHI AN AND CRUELTY. "PURELY AN ACCIDENT." (To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of the 17th inst. reference was made in a news item to the "Cancellation ol a Certificate of Exemption," granted to a Christadelphian of Swinton, Yorkshire, England, for cruelty to animals. As such mention has reflected upon the members of the sect residing in this quarter, we trust you will find space for the full facts of the case, which we have just received. Enclosed is a copy of the explanation made by the person concerned, to the "managing committee" of the church of which lie was a member. He twice appeared before them, and after strictest investigation they were satisfied that the affair was purely an accident, and he was not guilty of wilful cruelty. Christadelphians do not condone or tolerate wilful breaches of Christian principles and the person guilty of such ceases to be a member.—l am, etc.,

JOHN A. McLEOD Claudelands, April 24, 1918.

ACCUSED'S EXPLANATION. "I was in the employ of the farmer—whose horse was blinded —from January, 1917, until January, 1918, during which time I assisted in the- management of and working of seven horses, and from about August, 1917, I had the sole charge of these horses, with the assistance of my employer's nephew, a boy of 14 A years. Up to the beginning of December, 1917, thefe had not been any complaint with regard to my treatment of the horses. But on December 2nd, 1917, whilst I was bedding a horse in the "loose-box on the off-side, the horse being very near to myself and the wall, the boy referred to suddenly opened the door and startled the horse. The horse was restive and very excited, and the boy ran to the door out of the way,

and as I was in a difficulty and in danger of being hurt, I prodded the horse with the wood end of the fork; and as I was about to do this for the third time the hofse turned- its head sharply to

the right, catching its eye on the wood end of the fork, and in this manner the pupil of the eve was burst. It was purely an accident. I then sent the boy, who had seen the accident, to And and bring my employer, and as he was some time in doing this I went for him myself, taking him to the stable, when I explained just what had happened. When the police called on December 9th, 1917, the boy explained to them that the accident was caused by the wood-end of the fork. As a result of this I had to appear at the Rotherham Police CQurt on December 24th, 1917, in answer to a summons. My employer asked me to plead "guilty," and being entirely ignorant of such proceedings, and thinking I was merely allowing that I was the cause, I pleaded guilty. I can now see that in pleading guilty I was deceived; I ought to have said I was not guilty. On January 22nd, 1918, I appeared at the Appeal Court, Doncaster, where my case was reviewed; and evidently because I had pleaded guilty the Court would not accept my explanation and the military appeal was allowed. It was advanced on my behalf at the Appeal Court that if I had been inclined to ill-treat horses it would have been more likely that I should have done so when alone, rather than in the presence of any witness, and the fact- that no such thing had occurred should make-it more evident that this sad affair was, as I have tried to explain, purely an accident."