MILITARY SERVICE.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1916, Page 5

MILITARY SERVICE.

BILL BEFORE PARLIAMENT MODIFICATIONS MADE. ' ■ '■ /V'i ■i.itiM] By Telegraph.—Press Association Wellington, Last Night, Consideration >f the Military Bill was resumed m the House to-nigbt jV In Clause 9 on the motion of }jtr> ' ■ -i Witty, it was resolved to add "that un'j every man called up for service'should, J; so far as practicable, he notified to tlutt ' ellaet Uy registered letter." i s On Clause 18 tlic contention' wt* raised that medical boards should bo appointed. Hon. James Allen (Minister for Derf i fence) said it was probable that medl' i eal boards would be appointed'for the " ■ ,"i larger centres. The discussion was «atatinued till the dinner adjournment. % ■ < Clause 13, dealing with reiervlttf medically nil fit, was finally passed wit|t* • v out amendment. * i • • Clause 14, defining desertion by r»* maining in Xew Zealand, provoked much i adverse comment, several members contending that it was altogether too drastic, with no provision for externum*, ing circumstances. . At Jlr. Statham's suggestion a * v s tying amendment was included. 1 Clause 15 was passed. ' . In Clause 1(1, providing for the pull* ; ishment of deserters by imprlsonm»(iK' not exceeding ten years, the period wfc* reduced, on a division, to five yeari, the « voting being 50 to (5. ' On Chaise 17. providing for appeal by<i *Y reservists called up, Mr. Payne denOHUO-' \ ed sub-section C—"that by veil Son of • his occupation his calling up for military .J' service is contrary to public interest," which lie stated wits the reason tot' votes in favor of the Bill beiog' passed! { by branches of the Farmers' Union. Be "i claimed there should be no exemptions., [ He moved the deletion of the tub; ' section. , jf ■Mr Poole admitted that industrial &•<* terests must be protected, but he utr. tered a warning against the posßilrttity," of political pull by wealthy peoplo,,^;,.' One member described the clause <jM' the storm centre of the Bill. ■ Some speakers argued that the ■ section would prevent equality ot sacrj*'; ftce,, while enabling primary prOdi&ett; to continue making huge profits, -i " ". «\ • Others argued that farmers were wit'' cepting their full sliare of the respond* hility, and that the Appeal Board migjll& be relied upon to act fairly. . '