MR. WILFORD ANSWERS PRESBYTERIANS OBJECTORS TO TRAINING

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 711, 10 July 1929, Page 1

MR. WILFORD ANSWERS PRESBYTERIANS

OBJECTORS TO TRAINING

Conscience and the State CHURCH TAKES FIRM STAND t THE SI X'S Parliamentary ReporterJ PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Today. DESCRIBING the objections of Mr. A. M. Richards as those of a young politician and not conscientious, the Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. M. Wilford, absolutely refused the request of a large and representative deputation from the Presbyterian Church today to remit the sentences imposed on Richards and Alex Miller on June 12 . He spoke straight out from the shoulder to the deputation, which mentioned that a national crisis would result in the Presbyterian Church if the young men go to gaol.

The deputation was introduced by sir, P. Fraser (Wellington Central) jud Mr. W. J. Jordan. Dr. E. N. Merjington, master of Knox College, said lie deputation was not pacifist in any f eMe of the word, as many members, including himself, had been chaplains during the war, but all branches of the Presbyterian Church were represented in this effort to have remitted the sentences of the two young men, »to were genuine conscientious objectors. Richards and Miller had been hied £5 and deprived of their civil rights for 10 years. John McDougall »as refused exemption. All three rere divinity students. On the same toy three Seventh Day Adventists had been given exemption. The Minister: That is not correct. They Iccepted alternative service. Dr. Merrington asked if that fact had been made public, and the Minister said he had received a telegram from the military authorities o( Auckland notifying him of tile fact. Dr. Merrington said that the deputation represented the General Assembly of New Zealand, the four Presbyteries and ail previous deputations ou the subject, and all were in accord with giving members of the Presbyterian Chinch freedom of conscience in regard to military service. He claimed that the Defence Act of 1912 should be administered properly, with its provisions for conscientious objectors. M\ Wilford: You mean the clause as applying to good faith? Dr. Merrington agreed, and said that the young men were sincere. Military service was against their conscientious beliefs. “We find,” he said, “distinct discrim ination in regard to different denominations. No doubt it will be said that the magistrate will require a guarantee of good faith and then will have to fall back on the tenets of the religion of the men to find this, but, seeing that the Presbyterian Church has given freedom of conscience to its members in these things, the State should do the same.” He continued that, if men thought they were being unjustly treated, a national crisis would soon arise as in other yearß, and in the cases of men standing for the rights cf conscience against the stronger pcwer of the State. The Presbyterian Church asked that the discrimination between Cenominations be removed, or else tee cases would recur. Young McDougall appeared to be following the example of Richards and Miller. The Presbyterian Church wanted an objective means of ■wearing to the good faith of objectors, such as interviews with chaplains, who could question the Ten and report to the magistrate.

, Dhe church also maintained that Wo right to prescribe alternative service did not remain with the riagistrate, but with the Governor-in Council.

The settlement of the difficulties ™old be arrived at by the removal " the indifference shown to the ™t.of the Act by inequitable deal5. ®'th different classes of objectors, !f® the mode of giving expression ' belonging to a church and having casetenttous objection to military ■•rvice. The deputation asked for a vision of the sentences as the :«® u m penalties were too severe, , 'he cases were a travesty of jus“'e - it was learned that the men liable to imprisonment if they 1 hot pay the fine. This was not fair. They were ° e that would not paiy "ne, and nothing would move >hemjn their beliefs. Both State ?h i - lujrc ' l should be satisfied of 'heir sincerity. that®* chaplain, Dr. Merrington said tntiiLi- llltCll to se ® men do military ... ® ln s> but if their conscience dic"therwise they should have the r “‘ <’f such belief. HnT 8 v r - erinß the Rev - D - D - Scott, the wilford said that, as in the creed Frio j Christadelphians. Society of thor S ’ 111111 Seventh Day Adventists, in bt*® 1 definitely stated disbelief tr-in i ry training on conscientious K u? n | la : these Churches had been ■ " in a different category since ? ev ’ Mr - Scott spoke of the the a, j° n o£ 'he young men with said iw ' 6lll Christian Movement, and ’hat •, tlley lived and moved in tiati 1 mospllere of goodwill among •:e «*' They did not object to takHovoo <lutles aa prescribed by the w er rnor -in-Council as long as they Th B L ante d military exemption first, too iLr ev ’ J - E - Lopdell, the Welling--s'ouno Bbytery moderator, said the s men were not religious cranks,

but were following thS dictates of their conscience. Why should they not be exempted? He understood that the late Minister of Defence, Mr. Rolleston, had sent a wire to Richards’s father saying that the prosecutions would be dropped. The deputation was not threatening, but if the Church felt that injustice was being done, it would not sit under it. The Rev Dr. James Gibb said that the magistrate doubted the bona fides of the young men and yet offered them alternative service, saying that he would not grant them exemption. The Hon. Mr. Wilford held that the question was justified to test their bona fides. “Tomorrow or the day after,” said Dr. Gibb, “young Richards will go to prison, as I have learned from his father that arrangements have been made with the local constable to take him there. His action has been held up in the meantime because of the deputation.” He said there might be nation-wide agitation because of the case. The Hon. Mr. Wilford said that that did not frighten him. Dr. Gibb agreed that the Minister was a man who stuck to his principles. Replying, Mr. Wilford thanked the deputation for the clear, temperate and logical way they had put their requests, with the major portion of which he agrefid, but he said that, as ministers of the Gospel, the deputation confused the authority which interpreted the law with the authority which executed it. The making of the law was the exercise of the State, and its interpretation and application was the exercise of reason of a judge or a magistrate. The Legislature asked if the law was just. The judge or the magistrate was concerned with what was the law and whether it was being violated. “You come before me and say that this magistrate is wrong.” “We say so. We know be is wrong, because we know the young men. “But the function of the magistrate is to find whether, under the Defence Act of 1912, these young men are conscientious objectors. Mr. P. K. Hunt, (twice), Mr. McKean, and Mr. E. C. Cutten all said the young men were not objectors conscientiously,” said the Minister. He was the head of the Justice Department, and the three magistrates on four occasions had said that the young men were not objecting on conscientious grounds. "Let us take the case of Richards,” he said. He drilled at school, and when he left he was asked what regiment he would like to be posted to. He chose C Company, First Battalion, Auckland Regiment, and was duly posted after that, and before drilling he started to protest against military service as a young politician, and not as a conscientious objector, saying: —“I believe that preparations for war, because war is wholesale murder at the bidding of politicians too inept to settle international disputes, and of financiers, armament manufacturers, etc., beut on gain, are qn-Christian, and that therefore it is my Christian duty to take no part in them.” DIFFERS FROM DEPUTATION “Is that,” asked Mr. Wilford, “a political or religious scruple?” The Deputation: Religious. Mr. Wilford differed, and said that Captain Wales went to see Richards, and on asking why he objected was told they were going to “bust” the Defence Act. On the first three appearances, Richards paid fines ranging from £1 to £5, showing no intention to object. But today he proposed to immolate himself on the altar of sacrifice. ■ “What do you want me to do?” he asked. “The dreadful result of a man refusing to pay a fourth fine, and taking the alternative, would rouse New Zealand. You are asking me to set at defiance the judgment of magistrates who are sworn to act fairly, and who have made their decision a fourth time for Richards. “I tell you definitely, gentlemen, that I will not do anything in the case of Richards and Miller. If they are wise, they will pay the fines; if not, they must take the alternative.” “I have often wondered why no alternative services were gazetted; but on looking through the files of my predecessor X found the reason. Replies on the file from local bodies were in some cases unprintable. My predecessor had not made up bis mind on the question before he went out, but the matter was not neglected. “1 am going to find alternative forms of service and gazette them as quickly as I can I don’t care what religion a man is. He has a right to apply, if he conscientiously objects to military service. The clear duty of magistrates is to investigate and convince themselves of the conscientious objection. If there is conscientious objection they have to let the man off. I will be glad to receive suggestions

of alternative service. It is a very difficult task. "I hope these young men are not foolish enough to go to prison. They will gain nothing. The public now will be able to judge Richards.” Answering a question regarding Miller, Mr. Wilford said that previously, in 1927, Miller had done his 48 drills. , Dr. Merrington: Could not there be a mitigation of the los of civil rights? Mr. Wilford: That can be reviewed at any time. The deputation then withdrew.