A CASE FOR COMPROMISE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2886, 26 September 1916, Page 4

A CASE FOR COMPROMISE

The- friction which has arisen locally over the introduction of the new procedure under, which men who voluntarily enlist and pass the medical examination are at once oalled on to take the oath of allegiance should not !be diffioult to smooth away. It can bo assumed that both tho local Recruiting Committee, which has done such excellent work, and the Defence Authorities, are only desirous to secure the b'est possible results in the way of recruiting. So long as the . Committee' secures good results tho less the Defence Authorities interfere with the routine of its work the better. Me. . Allen, as Defence Minister, we are confident, will concede this. What ( 'then, is the point of difference which has led to the resignation _or retirement of the local Recruiting Committee? It is that tho Defence Authorities have appointed over their heads a military officor to attend to the attestation of men who attend at the recruiting office and to administer the oath of allegiance. This means, or appears to moan, that the business of the local Recruiting Committee, so far as the office duties associated with the enrolling of would-be recruits are concerned, is taken out of its hands, and the control placed in the hands of an officor of the Defence Department. Is this necessary? ./Under tho Military Service Act of last session, apparently not. The Minister has power by regulation to gazette who he pleases to attend to this work. Is the chango then desirable? If we are to accept what is known of the work of the local committee as a guide, the answer-must be again in the negative. The Committee, -Mr. Allen himself says, has done excellent work; its record is a good one; its officers have had many months' experience in the handling of men seeking information and offering oneir services. This experience must be of value—very great valuo indeed, one would think. In place of this body of experienced recruiters it is proposed to substitute ,a junior military officer—a gentleman who may be an excellent soldier, but who may or may not have either the tact or the judgment necessary to deal with the men who daily call at the recruiting office. It may be said that it is not the intention of tho military authorities to substitute this officer for the Committee; that what is actually desired is that the Committee should work under him. But it comes to the samo thing. The Committee apparently declines to bo interfered with in the manner stated. It will not continue to work under th'c condition's proposed. This being tbfe case, and the Recruiting Committee being a valuable organisation in good working order, the obvious thing to do appears to be to endeavour to meet its views. Why should it not bo permittod to continue its work of enrolment as usual, and the administering of* tho oath of allegiance be carried out as a separate act immediately afterwards? Why should the military officer interfere at all with the work of the 'Committco during any of the stages leading up to tho time when the recruit is called on to take the oath of allegiance? But, better still, why cannot the representative of tho Bccruiting- Committee bo authorised to administer the oath? The Defcnco Authorities should have plenty of work for their trained military officers without detaching them for duties which can be periormed equally well by civilians or old sokliors such as Captain Bauolay, the .secretary of blip local Recruiting Committee. To us, as to most people, wo imagino tho difference between the Recruiting Committco and the Defence Authorities seems easy of adjustment. Indeod, the Defence Authorities would. appear to have everything to gain and nothing to lose by permitting the jlemiitiug Committco to relieve them of what is after all nothing more than a routine part of the work..