Wanted !...A Plain Answer to a Plain Question.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 48, 9 February 1912, Page 8

Wanted !...A Plain Answer to a Plain Question.

IS TM'. FOLLOWINC CORRECT, OR i 3IT NOT CORRECT? ■ The Herniations for the Military Forces of the Dominion of Mew Zealand," par. i>oo, state:— tonal Force who commit, when per-'-Officers and soldiers of the Terrifonning military duty'or going to a.iid from the place of parade, exercise, or military duty, any of the offences specified in Part I. of the Army Act, shall be liable to be arrested, tri"d by court-martial, and punished in tho mnniier laid down by the Army Act, and the rules of procedure: provided that when tho offence, for which the officer or soldier is tried is one of those specified in tho Defence Act. the punishment awarded shall not exceed that therein laid down for that offence." Sumo of the. offences specified in Part I. of the Army Act, and not specified ill the Defence Act, the committing of which, therefire. renders a soldier of tho Territorial Forces liable to punishment as laid down in the Army Act, are printed below :— 'Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences: that is to say:—Strikes or offers or uses any violence to his superior officer, being in the execution of his office, shall upon conviction by court-martial be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and every person subject to military law who commits the following offence: that is to say: —Disobeys in such maiiner as tv show a wilful defiance of authority any lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office, whether the same is {riven orally, or in writing, or by signal, or otherwise,, shall on conviction by courtmartial be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as in this Act mentioned.'' The militarist party are not denying that the above quotations are correct, but are stating that the law is obsolete and is on a par witli an English law still on tho Statute Book (.), which for certain crimes sentences a person to bo drawn and quartered and the four quarters to bo staked at the cross-roads. This is simply untrue. Ths Army Act is not obsolete. It. is romnved every year by the passing of tho Army Annual Act. Tho opportunity is taken to review tho Army Act and make any necessary amendments. Tho military authorities always resist any abatement of its severity. Speaking on the Army Annual Act in the House of Commons, in March, I'M, Sir diaries Dilkc said:—

'Improvements in the barbarism of the Military Code had always been obtained by very sharp action*on the part of the members of this House. The Act which abolished flogging in tho Army in its old form was the result of a fourteen days' debato virtually on this Bill in Committee, and the change that had taken place this year was, nevertheless, forced upon the military authorities by the all-night sittings last session."

Sir Charles Dilke went on to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the "barbarous character and the extraordinarily complex character" of the Act, and further said: "The Act was hopelessly out of date." Since tho debate, the Army Act has been revised, we believe, by substituting, in certain places, the word "detention" for "imprisonment," "detention barracks" for

"jail" or "prison"—but the punishment remains the same!

Tho clauses abova quoted have not been repealed. The militarist party hold that it is necessary to have the power of death over the soldier. In view of tho above facts, the following quotation from a statement made recently by Lieutenant-Colonel Burnett-Stuart, D.5.0., at present officer commanding tho Canterbury District, is of importance :—"The Regulations above took six months to write, and went through about a dozen proofs. Every word lias to be weighed and its future effect considered."

So paragraph 200 of our Regulations (and others besides), which makes the Imperial Army Act the law for the New Zealand Territorial Forces, was not an oversight. Presumably, too, its future effect was also considered, and the authorities desire and intend to hold the power of death over New Zealand Territorials when circumstances permit? Is this so, or is it not? We want a plain answer. Wo do not want shuffling. Wo do not want to be told that the law will never be enforced. Our faith in tho military authorities is not such thaf we can trust them with such power.

The question is : Is the above the law or is it not!' We demand a plain, iwovwsive, Yinei-juivocal reply. Will any member of Parliament obtain it for us'r 1 If compulsory military sondes r<<quiros for its successful maiiiteiianoa that such barbarous powers should bo held by the military authority, then compulsory military acrvico stands condemned. That such a law could be intniduoed by regulation —upart altogether iioiii any question of its ultimate enforcement—is an illustration of the danger to our liberties which this wretched compulory military service scheme means. No one who values his liberty--lib-erty for which his forefathers bh-d, and died—should rest until the I)efe:;oa Act is repealed.