CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 July 1920, Page 4

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

GENERAL RUSSELL'S VIEWS, STATEMENT IN EXPLANATION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The opinion recently expressed by Major-General Sir Andrew Russell regarding the release of sonscientious objectors, having excited a good deal of discussion, the General was approached and asked to make a further statement on the subject. General Russell explained that ho made the statement in reply to a specific question, which he answered, and he undertook to make the answer public, which he had done. "I advocated the release of conscientious objectors on the ground that their imprisonment serves no useful purpose," said Sir Andrew. "The vindictive eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth policy is out of date—as a, reformative measure it is ineffective. During a war the necessity for preventive punishment is imperious, as a clear warning to others, but on the restoration of peace such action, in my opinion, is no longer necessary. The conscientious objectors in question will not be prevented from similar action in a future war by further punishment now. ''For the future," he added, "the true preventive of this abnormal view of a citizens' duty to his country is to be sought not by ■ a negative process of punishment, but by a positive process, inculcating and fostering a true national spirit. There will always be found in every community a few abnormal men who fail to realise that their conscientious objection is, in fact, a form of selfishness, in that it means that someone else has taken 'uhe conscientious objector's place at the. front. As to the disfranchisement of conscientious objectors who refuse obedience to any law with which they disagree, they certainly cannot claim the right to make the laws to be imnosesl oil others. I therefore take the view unless they make it perfectly clear that they are prepared to obey the laws of the country, they should not receive full civil rights. In the war time the continued imprisonment of these men involved expense to no purpose, if my conclusions are correct.

"It must be understood, of course," concluded vneral Russell, "that the views I have expressed apply solely to genuine conscientious objectors, not shirkers. Moreover, I wish to make clear that what I have expressed is purely my, own perf>mnl yiaw,.-