MAGISTRATE TO HAVE FREE HAND.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16258, 8 July 1918, Page 8

MAGISTRATE TO HAVE FREE HAND.

Sir James Allen, in referred first to the Wnnganui enquiry. "I thought 1 knew,'' he said, "what would be happening about this, and I can safely say that the strings have been pulled from one or two quarters. When I first heard about it a Departmental enquiry was asked for, and when that came to my hands it seemed to mq it was necessary to have a medical enquiry, and it was hold, and both were satisfactory from our point of view. Then a Mr* Badger, of Christchurch, came to see me. His brother is thore. I have every respect for him, and I trust him absolutely. He is not a conscientious objector himself, though his brother is, and I think he is one of the Brethren. He was grantel permission to go there and seo his brother privately. His brother made some statements about illtreatment, which Mr Badger verbally reported to me, and I asked him to put them in writing. He did so. Ho told ino that, so far as he could gather, the story about men having ropes round thoir nccks was totally untrue. There was a report that one man had had a /ope round his neck. Hon. J. T. Paul: Is there any difference of opinion as to what constitutes a rope? Sir James Allen: I don't know. I only toll you what he told me. I "believe there was a good deal of exaggeration and an r.ttempt to influence the public mind. T am not here to have the public mind influenced. I believe the truth will be ascertained by a man, of judgment, like a Magistrate, having a perfectly .free hand in holding the en-qui'-y. Ido nort see how enquiry can be hold. A Magistrate can see them privately and take their statements, and verify and test their statements to + he very fullest. He has boon asked to test them to the very fullest. If these men want to give evidenoe they can do so. In resrnrd to counsel being employed, the Magistrate was asked for his unbiased opinion; Ho said he did not think it was necessary for counsel to- be engaged, but if lie thought it necessary in any case he wouM allow it. He has been'instructed to employ counsel whenever he thinks it nocetsirv. Surely a Magistrate is a judicial'individual, nninflnen"ed by the Government, and if he thinks counsel should be engaged, it will he engaged. T tMnk that is the proper method of dealing with the pnhject, and that by that means we shall get at the truh. Tho rennrt of the Magistrate will bo made public. F"". J. T. Paul: Is there any trnth in the statement that some of those men have been sent to_ other centres for the purpose of bulking enquiry?

Sir JpTnes /lien: No; as far ns I know. If flioy have been sent away thev will be Pent back to Wanganni or the Maori atrn to will visit them. I have left it in his hands. MEN ABROAD—GREAT EXAGGERATION.

"As to those men who have gone to the front, there has been a good deal of exaggeration," Sir James Allen went on to say. "I secured some time ago a report about each of them, and 1 published it in the papers and printed and circulated it. Some of the motheis have been saying that they have had no word of their boys, and that they are, apparently, not allowed to write. I telegraphed about that, and I said to General Richardson that if the regulations prevented these lads writing, he was to secure for me a report about them every three months, and 1 would send it to their mothers. There are reports about harsh treatment if these lads at the front—that they have had Field Punishjrent No. 1, which has been called 'crucifixion.' To New Zealand ears, 'crucifixion' means somtv thing, more than Field Punishment No. 1. I believe it is tying a man to a wheel, or something of that sort, if he becomes Violent or won't behave himself. I can see no good reason why these men should be brought back, because if they were brought back it would be an obvious admission that the Government was weak, and that it was practically giving way to pressure, when it did not think the pressure was justifiable. "You are honest men, I believe, ind I think you want to win the war as much as I or anybody else does, and you want every citizen to do his duty. Some men, from conscience, don t think they ought to do their auty, and take part in this war. I respect their conscience as far as a man can, you will give me credit that when the legislation was going through I attempted to make some provision dealing with tho conscientious objector, but you know what the feeling of Parliament was as well as I do, and though I gave the lead (though I am determined nobody shall escape his duty, I believe in a conscience), they .made the legislation more severe than I suggested I want to carry ont the law as Parliament made it, and the more I see. of it now the more must I confess that the judgment of Parliamept has a good deal to justify it. I know men who on the plea of conscience are shirking their duty. They are deliberate and defiant objectors. I taiow it. I have seen them and questioned them. Th<re are some men who. rightly r.r wrongly, have a conscience -which dictates to them their actions. I think that, conscience is on a bad foundation, but they are honest. Hon. J. T. Paul: It governs their actions.

Sir James Allen: Yes, there is that. And it may be possible for us to show some sort of discrimination, but the difficulty is in discriminating. It is so hard fojudge. Ycu have no evidence of a man's conscience, except, perhaps, his previous life. Of that, generally, yon have some evidence. If he belongs a sect we allow the religious objector to so into civilian work. Conscientious objectors were offered non-combatant service. I cannot understand how the most rigid objector can object to non-com-bats nt service—saving life, not taking it. Going back to the fourteen men who were nway, I believe they have had great hardships to endure —hardships at tho hands of their oomrades more than from anybody elsa, They have had hardships to endure because they would not obey the law, as anybody must if he won't obey the law. May I not ask you if their hardships are in any way to. he compared to the men who go into the trendies all the year round, and who

fight for them and for us? I can't 606 wuat these fellows can object to so long a-s they have not to go and face what the other fellows liavo to face in the trenches. These conscientious objectors are living in safety in New Zealand.. I can't seo the logic of it. You know that on many occasions in Parliament I did what I oould about the conscientious objector. I am not speaking in any way with a feeling of prejudice. Tho more I see of it the less do I feel that Parliament was wrong when it made the legislation pretty stiff. I am sorry I cannot eee my way to agree with you. I liopo that what I have said may lead you to seo that there are som© arguments on the other side."