!"■ ' =v ' .'■■■:—-= WHY NOT "DEFENCE DAYS" ?

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1620, 11 December 1912, Page 9

WHY NOT "DEFENCE DAYS"?

.'•-•■-- r-r-» —.. ■A STOREKEEPERS PEOPOSITION. ' (By TolegTaph.-Speclal Oorresporident.) . ..Auckland, December 10.: ■'. Among the difficulties arising in con-, nection with the defence scheme is the need for taking.a number of young men, away from- employment on Saturdays, m order that .they-may train with, otherswho have their.'half -holiday upon that day. This imposes, a little hardship upon many, small, shopkeepers who observe Wednesday as their half-holiday,.and-who. have a heavy'■ Saturday- afternoon • and evening trade.. ~' .' ■Mr. A. E.. Thode, a, storekeeper.,of ■Mount Albert,' has suggested to a reporter that a system might easily be arranged to overcome tlie difficulty. He , proposes, that- one day a month (or more if need be) should be given over entirely by all shops, offices, and factories as- defence days," and that the training 6f the Territorials should take place upon that day. If such a day were to .be selected, accord-, ing to some simple rule, so as to fall at a time of slack business, it would quickly bo recognised, and those who were eligible for military training could all be Tckased with a minimum of hardship. Mr..Thode said' that- he felt sure that such a scheme would commend itself to small shopkeepers,' and would meet with little opposition in other quarters.. , The officers who had the duty of training the Territorials would probably be very pleased if it could be arranged, because, on each occasion, they would have the greatest possible number of men. on parade, and [the efficiency of the training could be much increased. '