ARMY DEATH PENALTY.

Hokitika Guardian, 3 April 1925, Page 2

ARMY DEATH PENALTY.

IOZia&HAN IND N.Z. OiSLK ASSOCIATION

ABOLITION ADVOCATED. LONDON, April 2

In the House of Commons, while Minister of War, Sir L. WorthingtonEvuiis was replying in the debate on the death penalty, Mr Thurtlo a native of Melbourne, intervened. He said:—“ln view of the tact that the Australian Government has refused t*put on its troops the painful duty of executing their colleagues, does not the Minister for Mar think that lie might accord similar treatment to the British soldiers?’’

Bir L. Worthington Evans: "ll.e member is not quite right in regard tthe conditions under which the Australians served. The death penalty was not- entirely abrogated. There was a deatli penalty for mutiny, treachery nr desertion to the oncilit. 1 think that a comparison between the Australians, ami the British is likely to make liiis.hief. so 1 do not propose to answer .Mr Thurtlc’s question.” LONDON, April 1. In the death penalty debate in the House of Commons. Colonel \\ bite. 1 n ionist Member for Southport, said that in the Australian camps in Frame, while 999 out of a thousand were magnificent men, the residue were not nervous. trembling, shrinking l.'ds as Mr Thurtle bad de,s. l iked, but they we c big burly fellows, who deserted the line, hid in the weeds, and played “■Grown and Anchor,’’ ‘and they hec boasted it was a hotter way to make money than being in the line.

CANADIAN GENERAL’S STATEML.n i . OTTAWA, April 1

Sir Arthur Currie, Comma nder-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces Overseas commenting on the statement made ill the British House of Coinmens by the Secretary for War. Sir L. Worthington-Evans, that twenty-five Canadians and five -»cw Zoalandcis but ,„> Australians bad been executed during the Great War, declared that was bard to understand why such a question had been asked, or answered, in the British House of Commons without reference to Canada. This matter concerned Canada alone. Ti was bard to see wlmt conceivable good could be derived from the infunua-

>Sir Arthur Currie says that the answer given by the War Minister makes n most unfair comparison between the Canadians and the Australians. He says that the Government of the Dominion of Canada never gave up W authority over its own troops, but so far as deripline was concerned. Ibis authority was delegated, more or less completely to the Commandcr-in-Chicf of the British Armies in Frame. This principle wrs definitely stated in an agreement between the War Office and the Minister of the Overseas Military Fores of Canada. yjj. a. Currie said that Australia bad delegated her authority over her troops on this point less rompk’tel than did Canada. For one thing, be said, no Court Martial on an Australian soldier could take place without one or more Australian officers being on the Court.

In the same way. he added, it wa< generallv known that no death sen tone was ever to be approved. Tbit fact, while Jt never bail been publish' 0(1 in the Orders, was perfectly vcl known, and realised.

“I do not.’’ Sir A. Currie said, “wish to make any reflections on the conduct of the Australians, hut the fact that none of them was executed, while twenty-live Canadians were executed proves nothing. If the facts o the ease, as reported, are correct, I consider that the British Government fins committed another stupid blunder ~11,1 |,ns struck a dangerous blow at the Jinl'crinl friendship." DEATH PENALTY IN ARMY. LARGER AM EX DM EXT DEFEATED. (Received this day at 9 a.in.) LONDON. April 1. In the House of Commons, in the Committee stage ul the Army Annua, Bill, the Labourite, Mr ’I hurtle, moved an amendment objecting to the death penalty, lie argued that there was on difference between what the army called cowardice, and what medical men called nervous I reakdown. H was an insult to the whole British Army to hold a threat of the death penalty over them. No a single Australian bud been oeeuted in war time, because Australia said that their soldiers should not be executed in war time, because Australia penalty bad not operated against the Australians did not mean that they fought less determinedly or courngcoousiy than the oilier troops. He demanded. in the name of the Labour Party, that the British Government apply the Australian condition to our own troops. Mr Snell sai l the Australian examine was valuable as showing that a modern nation knowing its own sous trusted them and held their honour in ood repute without bolding over then Hie dreadful penalty of capital punishment.

Sir Earning Worthington Evans (Secretary of War) replying, said the question had been threshed out lioni e\ot\ point of view on first-hand evidence. Two committees had reunited against the abolition of the Heath penalty m serious cases. The latter committee favoured certain alterations which he accepted and incorporated in the Bill before the House. The death penally was intended as a deterrent. ratnei then a punishment and its retention wiis in ibe interest of the army. lie bail no intention of entering upon nnv mischievous and invidious comparisons between the Australian and the Britisb armies.

The amendment was deleateil by 329 to 130.