THE SHIRKER.

Hokitika Guardian, 30 May 1919, Page 1

THE SHIRKER.

“A CUR TO HIS FLAG.”

RETURNED SOLDIER’S OPINION

OF MILITARY DEFAULTERS CHRISTCHURCH, May 27,

At the Returned Soldiers!. Conference, on behalf of the Oamaru association, which had no delegate present. Mr Alrich, (Wellington) moved a remit: “That the association considers that conscientious objectors who have received sentence should he made to serve the full term.”

Mr Andrews, (Auckland), moved an amendment that the following words be added to the remit: “And that the Government be urged to use every endeavour by offering rewards and by other means at their disposal to bring to trial every man who has failed to parade when called in ballot, and every man who deserted from camp after having been attested.” Mr Alrich agreed to include those words in his motion, but the chairman ruled that the amendment referred to a different question from that of the actual remit.

It was decided that Mr Andrews’ proposal should come up as a separate motion. On tlie suggestion of Mr. Batten, (Wellington), Mr Alrich agreed to alter the words “conscientious objectors” in his remit to “military defaulters.” Mr McManus, (Dunedin) said he was of the opinion that a military defaulter should bo punished, but if he really had conscientious objections then, now that the war was won, there was no call for any display of vindictiveness. Mr Long (Auckland) said ho would

have no mercy whatever on the man who had shirked his responsibility to his country, but he would punish him in such a way that the punishment woujd not reflect- on his dependents. The speaker repected a man who had a genuine religious opinion, but many had shirked their responsibilities behind the cloak of religion. He added that the Auckland association had pledged itself to sit on no committee with men who had failed to fulfill their obligations, to their country. Mr Melling, (Auckland) strongly supported Mr Long and the remit. Mr Simeon, (Gisborne) said there was only one way in which to describe a man who would not fight for his wife and children and for his flag. He was a cur to his flag and to liis country, and shooting was too good for him.

Mr Tattersal, (Rotorua) supported the remit, and remarked that every man who had been sentenced had had his case thoroughly sifted before such action was taken. The remit was then put and carried unanimously. Mr Andrews’ motion, as previously worded, wa's also carried without dissent.