PRESBYTERIAN STUDENT

Hokitika Guardian, 15 June 1927, Page 1

PRESBYTERIAN STUDENT

REFUSES MILITARY SERVICE.

By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, June 14. The Auckland Presbytery was called upon at its meeting to-day to declare

its attitude on the debateable question of compulsory military training. After a discussion, which was carried over from the afternoon to the evening session, the Presbytery adopted a resolution expressing the view that a change from the compulsory to voluntary military training should he brought about by pressure of public opinion, and not by a refusal to obey the law. The question was raised by a letter

from Mr A. M. Richards ,a student for the ministry, who has come in conflict with the law by refusing to undergo military training.

“As one of your students,” Mr

Richards wrote, "I am writing to Inform you that I am cited to appear in tlie Utagistrat’e’s Court to-morrow, June 15, owing to my refusal to take part in preparations for war. 1 have been largely influenced in making this refusal bv the utterances of several of yourselves, and especially by the Assembly’s resolution on tlic mattei. If, as the Church lias declared, military training is wrong in principle, it is obviously wrong to take any pait in such training.” The writer went on to say that he

intended basing his plea on the Assembly’s resolution, and he asked for a statement from the Presbytery of its attitude to war and to preparations for

war. Rev. C. Herron submitted the following resolution: “While admiring Mr Richards’s courage, and while sympathising with his desire to witness his conseicntous protest against compulsory preparation for war, the Presbytery believes that tlie mind of our Church, as expressed in the resolution advocating a return to the voluntary system of military training, passed by the last General Assembly, is that this reform should he brought about by the pressure of public opinion causing our legislators to alter the law in this way, so as to bring our country more into line with the spirit of tho League of Nations, and not by a refusal io obey the law while it continues to exist.” Rev. B. Hitson and Mr Richards had learned only that afternoon that tlie Assembly’s resolution did not cover his case. It was open to him to tell the Court he had misunderstood the attitude of his Church, and then the case would drop. Rev. Mr Richards said he believed that there was a conscience clause in the Act, to which his son. could plead. The question was then raised whether Mr Richards had committed any breach of the Act. Mr Richards was given permission to explain his position further. Mr Richards said he could not leave his church out of it, because he was bound to he asked about his religious convictions. He still felt that the Assembly's resolution, if carried out to its logical conclusion, did support his attitude, because it condemned compulsory military training. He took this step to arouse public opinion on the matter, and that was the only reason lie took it. , The motion was carried without dissent.