EXEMPTION CLAIMANTS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 80, 1 November 1916, Page 3

EXEMPTION CLAIMANTS.

. AMUSING ARGUMENT. In the military exemption courts in , Australia the evidence of the appli-, t cants and the Magistrate’s comment i thereon make very interesting read- - ing. From latest files of Sydney papers to hand the following typical 3 instances are clipped : A PLYMOUTH BROTHER, An applicant said he was a member of the body known to the world as the Plymouth Brethren. He entered the witness-box carrying a Bible. The magistrate: You object to bearing arms ? Applicant: Yes; I object to bear- ’ ing arms or engaging in any national service which would cause me to ’ violate God’s Word or my conscience. •“Have you made any sacrifice as a result of your belief P “No. 1 have'’held these opinions for about two years, and prior to the war; but until two years ago I was not too clear on the word of God with regard to the subject of war.” “Have the Plymouth Brethren, as a body, and objection to bearing arms, 1 oi' do they penalise any member wiio engages in warfare?” “Only when it is not in accord with the Word of God.” “You state you are willing to engage in farming. There is no farming in connection with the military.” . “I’m prepared to serve t ;iij. ,£he spreading the Word of QJlJ'ist ! and the saving of souls.” ( IU . j “Oh ! you’ve said that_t(;fjOgcr(d times.” f \ The applicant finally consented to serve in the Army Medical Corps. MA CONSCIENCE ! One conscientious objector stated ■ that his conscience woidd not permit , hi hi to leave Australia to fight in the war, it being to Ins mind a God-for-saken thing right through, and in no way compatible with his religious be- . liefs and teachings. At the same time lie ‘did hot absolutely object to noncombatant service provided it was not under naval administration. H!is application was refused. 'Another conscientious objector, a member of the Plymouth Brethren persuasion, give ns his objection that as he was a Christian and the nluty of a Christian was to love his hnenlids he could not see his way clear Ho*; takfe up arms against any enemy. a'l-sb objected to non-combatant syiyifQ, because he - had no guarantee of being kept in such service. The application was refused. CASE OF ENEMY BLOOD.

| A most unusual objection was put j forward by a young man from Enl field. His father, now deceased, was a German, and lie said that, haying a certain amount of enemy blood in him, he would be an object for any officer to -vent his rage on in a case of riot or anything being done, «The magistrate would uft believe that Australian- officers were likely to act in such a Germanic manner, and declined to grant exemption. “CONSCIENTIOUS !” An applicant wrote on his exemption application form that his “conscientious” was against it. The magistrate: Are you not prepared to defend yourself ?—No, my conscience is against it. The magistrate: I am afraid I am not very conscientious, because if 1 were attacked T am afraid I would have to protect myself. Are you prepared to do non-combatant work ? l The witness protested that hjs re--1 ligious convictions would not allow- him to take part in the war in any capacity. The magistrate said he could not criticise the applicant’s convictions, but on the facts as stated lie could not grant exemption. “EIGHT OH ! “Eight oh !” said one young fellow, smilingly, when tin* , magistrate turned down his application for ex-, ■emption. “1 am glad to see yon take it smilingly—-better than some of them take it when their applications arc refused,” was the magistrate’s comment.