MILITARY SERVICE BOARD METHODS.

Waikato Times, Volume 89, Issue 13888, 14 October 1918, Page 3

MILITARY SERVICE BOARD METHODS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —St rone comment and adverse criticism is frequently made, and generally justifiably so. on the decisions of Military Service Boards in granting sine die exemptions on the ex parte statements of appellants, anil the Boards usually excuse themselves by saying that no evidence on the other side was produced. In nine cases out of ten it is never known who is going to appeal, and in any case it is unfair to expect people to commit themselves to a course of action they might afterwards he made to regret. Is it not the duty of the Boards to make an exhaustive investigation into each case before coming to a decision? We have in our midst Efficiency Boards composed for the most part of level-headed men well able to advise the Military Service Boards on the. genuineness of most local appeals. But are they ever consulted? If not. what is the use of them? The term "efficiency" is clearly a misnomer if they have no say on what is efficient in the interests of the Empire and country in respect to the local obligations of ttie community within its jurisdiction. The local Military Service Board here has, by a recent decision, quite lost sight of the fact that we arc living under war conditions, and that a man's first duty is to the Empire, and that local considerations\ and interests should be subservient to Imperial requirements. Six weeks ago a correspondent sent you the report of a speech (which you published) by Sir Auckland Geddcs, the National Service Minister in the British Cabinet, in which he deplored men having a "pull and privilege and power being protected by tribunals." He wound up his speech by saying: "I am afraid this is what some of the tribunals in the country are allowing them to have. Only public opinion can root that out. No regulation and no orders can do it. The only thing is the determination of the men and women of the country that these things shall be done fairly. When they have knowledge that these things are not done fairly, let them stand up and say 'this is not fair,' and by putting their finger on the spot, show where ttie unfairness is. The only way democracy can govern is that there should he fearless criticism of graft, of favouritism and of privilege." This course was adopted by myself and others in a recent notorious and analogous instance which was reported to the Minister of Defence, who placed the representations before the local Military Service Board. The chairman's reply was that "ttie appeal was decided upon the evidence placed before the Board — by a single individual—and that up to the present no reason has been shown why the case should be reconsidered." And this in the face of the strong expression of public opinion which appeared in your columns, and which the Board knew all about! The chairman further slated that "in the event of further evidence being produced warranting such a course the Board will be prepared at once to re-open the appeal." He does not, however, say what he wants evidence about. A public and uncontroverted statement was made by myself and others. Surely, then, it was the bounden duty of the Board to instruct its military repres°ntative to make every enquiry, and not to look for voluntary and unsolicited evidence which might he regarded as personal feeling. Indeed, the Board should have the power to subpoena witnesses to give evidence. The present lax system simply generates the suspicion "of graft, of favouritism, and of privilege" condemned by Sir Auckland Cieddes. The correspondence with the Defence Minister is at my office, and is available for perusal by anyone interested.—l am, etc., JOHN W. WAHBEN.