CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16484, 25 February 1914, Page 10

CORRESPONDENCE.

DEFENCE • ACT PROSECUTIONS. TO TUB EDITOR. | Sir, —In the interview with Genera*' Godley which you published yesterday* the General states that no discrimination is. shown in summonsing offenders under the Defence Act. • These summonses, he says, are the work of the civil authorities, and I understand that the procedure is for the military authorities to make up the register of attendance at drills at certain periods and then hand the names of defaulters over to the police for them to proceed with the summonses. This is the only impartial, proper method,, but the facts do not seem to agree with the method. We have never been able, to obtain official details of these prosecutions. When asked for them, MriAllen, Minister of Defence, stated in Parliament on September 3 last (I quote from “Hansard”), “I am coming to the conclusion—and I do not want to come to this conclusion—that the less one gives to the House in the way of information the better, because hon- 1 ourable members will not use it fairly.” . So far as prosecutions in Christ-, church are concerned, here are some facts. All of these cases are of lads who have never attended' drill. I do not give their' names, as I have ' no intention of.. assisting- the; military-; ’authorities to still further prosecutions. Case I.—Summonsed in September and November, 1913, and February, 1914, ninth prosecution. ; Case 2.—Summonsed in September and November, 1913, and February, 1914, sixth prosecution. • Case 3.—Summonsed in September and November, 1913, fifth prosecution. Case 4.—Summonsed November, j 1913, and February, 1914. .No previous prosecution. Case s.—Summonsed in June, 1913. Fine not paid, and no further prosecution.

Case 6.—Summonsed in August, 1913. .Has served four terms of imprisonment. Case 7.—Served, two terms of. imprisonment ; last prosecution took place ! in January, 1913. Case B.—Served two terms of imprisonment and paid one fine. No prosecution since February, 1913., Case 9.—lmprisoned in July, 1913 { no prosecution since. Case 10.—Imprisoned in July, 1913; no prosecution since. Case 11.—Imprisoned for third time in December, 1913. Case 12.—Imprisoned in July and December, 1913. And so one could go on. ' These boys are not hiding; they are all members of the Passive Resistors’, Union and have,_ during the'last year, , been working in their anti-militarist propaganda. Not one of them has attended a single drill since'the compulsory scheme started, and yet during the last seven months two of them have been summonsed three times, two liavo been summonsed twice, three summonsed once, while live of them have. noS been summonsed at all. And of.those, again, one has been summonsed nine times, another six, while one has received one summons only. And this state of things. does ’ not • happen to be confined to Christchurch. Mr Poynton, the Stipendiary Magistrate at Palmerston North, is reported as having remarked on February 13, when he had a large number of Defence Act cases before him, M tnat he could not understand why some Territorials were allowed to miss fourteen out of fifteen parades, while others were brought before the Court for missing two or three. It seemed to him that there was something wrong somewhere.” One can only think that either the Military Department’s registers must be in a hopeless muddle or Glse discrimination has been shown. I am inclined ■to think that it is - the books which are in a muddle, for the following reason:—Two Christchurch lads who obtained a “ religious ’ .exemption have since been summonsed twice, each for nob attending drills. An explanation by their mother to. the Magistrate in Court, of course, caused the summons to be withdrawn .each time, but it. did not prevent the mistake occurring again. Another lad who was granted exemption by a Christchurch Magistrate in February, 1913, was summonsed on October 24 for hot rendering nersonal service. As a test, we allowed the case to proceed without explanation, and the samJ Magistrate inflicted a fine of ten shillings.—. I am, etc.. JOHN P. F. FLETCHER Christchurch-, February 19.