Military Court Appeal

Horowhenua Chronicle, 11 January 1917, Page 3

Military Court Appeal

BY AN IRISH SOLICITOR, At Te Aroha a few days ago, the Te Aroha News reports, an appeal against being drawn for compulsory military service was lodged by Philip O'l>onnell, of Matamata. Appellant said he was a solicitor employed as ! branch manager by Hiampson, Greatbach and Davys, of Rotorua. He understood his employers were appealing for temporary exemption for him in order that office affairs might be put in proper order. At the time he took over the position—last July—he honestly believed 1 he was medically unfit for active service, though he had never enrolled. He desired two or three months' exemption so that he could arrange his affairs. He considered it was necessary that a solicitor should be at Matamata, in the public interest. Major Conlan contended that the appellant's employers should see to their own affairs. There was absolutely no reason whj apellant should get exemption.

The court dismissed the appeal. Appellant then referred to the three points of his own appeal. 1. That he was not a reservist. He said he was born in Ireland, and arrived in the .dominion five years ago, intending to return to Ireland after practising for about three yeans. He maintained lie was prima facie domiciled in Ireland, and therefore was exempt from service. No amount of compulsion on the part of New Zealand Governments could compel him to enlist, by virtue of this fact. Appellant quoted from Halbury s "Laws of England," Volume VI., in support of his argument.

Being asked why he came to the dominion, he said it was purely and solely to qualify as a solicitor—it was less expensive here than in Ireland.

To -Mr. Burgess: He admitted he was a British subject, bound by the law of the country in which he was living, but claimed he was domiciled in Ireland.

Appellant then referred to 'the second point of his appeal: public interest by reason of the fact that Irishmen had been exempted from fc-on-scription for military service.

Major Conlan asked the Board to decide, whether the objections were not frivolous. The appellant had not been able to get exemption through his employers and had 1 raised these points personally. It was not creditable at ail, and he was ashamed at having to hear of a brother solicitor making use of such an unpatriotic plea for exemption, in view 'of the lact that so many solicitors had gone to the front, and in some cases; had sacrificed theilr practices l to do so.

Appellant thereupon waived that point, and raised the third. He contended it was ■unconstitutional to force men to proceed overseas to fight the Empire's battles. He also quoted at length from various statutes in support. He protested against the jurisdiction of the Board and the Military Service Act.

Hife fourth—and last—ground of appeal was that of religious objection'. He had been brought up as a Catholic to abhor going to war.

You could be a good and true Catholic and yet go 1 to war?—l don't think so.

How many of your co-religionists have been proud to go? —They are doing wrong.

It is no a, fundamental .principle of your OhuTch that you should not fight P—No, but my personal objection to bearing arms forbids me, and the Clmrch supports my attitude. It

I loaves the matter of enlistment entire- ' to personal conviction. My (authority for these statements is Rev. I?a----ther McGuinnees, of Te Arolia, whom I have asked to come along, but he has not appeared. ' Major Conlan, interrupting: No, • no, there are thousands of Catholic ; priests in the war in all capacities.— j I cannot dispute that. I have asked j four or five priests in .'Wellington, | and they agree with my attitude. | After some further discussion in i which the chairman sought to show the Act's intention the Board over- : ruled the points raised. Mr Burgess said the Board's duty was to administer the Act as they found it. The appeal would be dismissed.