Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 20 September 1917, Page 2

That a grave injustice has been done to Samuel Edward Fitzgerald by an illegal military tribunal, and that still graver injustice by Act of Pa'rlianwvit is contemplated, is not only made clear by the statement made in the House of Representatives on Thursday flight by Mr. P. C. Webb,, Labour member for Grey, and by Mr. P. J. O’Regan’s letter in Saturday’s issue of the “N.Z. Times,” but is practically admitted by clauso 10 of the Expeditionary Forces Amendment Bill. This is tho definite conclusion in the editorial columns of the “Times.” The facts as stated by Mr. Webb and Mr. O’Regan are, briefly, that Fitzgerald, a seaman, tweniv-seven years of age, enlisted in 1915, but was turned down as medically unfit. Called up in the first military ballot while away at sea, he did not hear of it till his re- i turn to New Zealand; and having previously been turned down as unfit when ( he volunteered for service, ho very na- j turnlly di d not attach much import- j ance to the fact that he had been j called up. He made another voyage— j to Australia and back—was arrested j iu Wellington on his return, tried by district court-martini in March last and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. Fitzgerald claimed that lie v.’sm not a deserter, but wanted to go into camp; end that he was no “shirker” is proved by the fact that ho bad voluntarily enlisted in 1915. Me was, however, persuaded by u. mjlitarv officer to plead guilty at tho trial, on the understanding that ho would merely bo sent, into camp. To amazement, however, and also, we understand to tho great indignation of the officer who had induced him to

i plead guilty, ho was sentenced, as already stated, to no less than twelve I months’ imprisonment. Those facts are virtually admittod by the Minister I of Defence, and when the matter was , mentioned in the House tho Premier asked members to suspend judgment till tho (Expeditionary Forces Bill was again before the House when the Minister of Defence would make a full explanation. This latter seems most desirable supplemented as it should be by fair play and reparation • to Fitegarald who appears to have bean hardly dealt with. Mr Arthur Ransome, a well-known British correspondent in Petrograd, gave an amusing illustration recently of the idea of liberty as it presents itself to too many Russians. A stout old lady, he said, was walking, with her basket down the middle of a crowded road to the great confusion of the traffic, and with no small peril to herself. Tt was pointed out to her that the pavement was the place for foot-passengers, hut she replied, “I’m going to walk where I like. We’ve got liberty now.” Commenting on this story, one who writes under the name of “Alpha of the Plough,” in the London “Star,” said: —“lt did not occur to the dear old lady that if liberty entitled the footpassenger to walk down the middle of the road it also entitled the cab-driver to drive on tho pavement and that tho end of such liberty would bo universal chaos. Everybody would ho getting in everybody else’s way and nobody would get anywhere. Individual liberty'would have become social anarchy. There is a danger of the world getting liberty drunk in these days like the old lady with the basket, and it is just as well to remind ourselves of what the rule of the road means. It moans that in order that the liberties of all may he preserved, tho liberties of everybody must he curtailed. . . . Civilisation is largely a matter of inventing a rule of the road and seeing that it is observed. It is because Germany has not observed the rule, hut, like the old lady in Petrograd, has declared that the road belonged to her, that the world is engaged iu tliis terrific struggle. We have got

to teach this anarchist State that tho liberties of other States are just as sacrod as its own.”