MILITARY SERVICE

Hokitika Guardian, 10 August 1929, Page 6

MILITARY SERVICE

TIMARU PRESBYTERY’S ATTITUDE. AN OFFICER’S CRITICISM. TIMARU, Aug. 8. The Attitude of the Timaru Presbytery towards military training, and conscientious objectors as indicated in a motion carried by that body, is described by Lieltenant-Colonel L. M. Inglis, M.C. Officer Commanding the First Canterbury Regiment, alternateively. as “a motion more.u .worthy of political schemers than of clergymen,” or. “an insidiously camouflaged attempt :to insert the tin-opener into the can of compulsion. “In the course of an interview, Colonel Inglis said that the most important part of tlie motion read : “That exemption be granted to all persons whose conscientious objections to military service are certified by trustworthy witnesses without discrimination between denominations.” There was only one person . qualified. to testify as to the conscientious beliefs of any man—the man hmself. And as the most common motives for wishing to evade military service were laziness, and greed in time of peace, and fear intime .of war ; , before such testimony could be accepted as genuine it should be; compared with,-' and be consistent with, the past-and .present conduct of the applicant for exemption. “It -is clearly cqmmonsense,” added 1 Colonel Inglis; -“that the ..individual claiming to be entitled ,to a special privilege , should bear the onus of proving to the authority empowered to grant the privilege that he., is entitled to the privilege of exemption. Therefore if a conscientious objector fails .to discharge the burden of proof which rests upon him, then he has no real, grievance.” Colonel Inglis further stated that if the Timaru Presbytery held that there was a 1 grievance in the case it referred to : — that of two Auckland men—then its attitude was really an attack on the integrity‘of the Magistrate who heard 'tne case.

Dealing with a further motion proposed by the Rev P. G. Hughes, which had as its object the abolition of military ‘training, Lieutenant-Ooljonel Inglis contended that no attempt had behn made to explain a. third reason in- stating why a voluntary defence force would be more acceptable to- “the mind and spirit.of Christ” than a compijlsory one. Mr Hughes had also left tlije second ground unexplained, trusting, no doubt, to the verbiage in which he dressed it to cast a at! least a portion of those who read it. Tri regard to the first reason, however, which' read: “That compulsory military training is contrary to the whole trend of British sentiment and policy,” Mr ! Hughes had been either deliberately misleading in the worst, political sense or nnpardonably ignorant of the subject.