THE WEEK, THE WORLD, AND WELLINGTON.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9151, 25 July 1908, Page 6

THE WEEK, THE WORLD, AND WELLINGTON.

(By Frank Morton.)

Red Tape and Defence. —Rough Si'OBT.—A TIUEIiY Pkotkst.

We hear a good deol about the necessity of defence. Quite properly so. In case of any such great and internecine European war as may at any time spring from the hotbjd of diplomacy, it would be an excellent thir.g that a remote community like that of New Zealand should have at hand a strong force for defence. I have h word or two to say illustrative of the zeal of the defence autnuiitiea in the matter of defence There is a project afoot to bring together all returned South African troopers and form a special corps in Wellington. There are many men of 0 .r own contingents, there are others of Brabant's Horse and various other bodies with brilliant records in the Boer war; and very few of those men are now attached to any of our established volunteer corps. That is ' natural. Men who have seen arduous active service seldom care to work in association with ordinary volunteers But those returned troopers stand for the best fighting stuti in tne Dominion in case of tiiites arising at any time; and at this moment they are rusting in activity. Thus the Wellington proposal, whether the men form a company of infantry or a cum .mil y o* seouis, is a urn iy H ci ir ''' proposal. These men in case of need, could be mounted; for they are all accustomed and hardened to mounted work. Their co-operation would enormously stiffen the arm of defence in case of emergency. They would be officered by men who had faced fire on the veldt. These men (if I may recall the fact without offence) were the idols of the country n few short years ago. They certainly brought honour to the name of New Zealand during the progress of a costly and bitter war. They certainly upheld the British piestige at a time when British prestige was very gravely threatened. You see, 1 am not running counter to any of your prejudices. I am not discussing the merits and justification of the war in South Africa; I am simply attempting to present for your consideration the case of men who did their duty at our call, and who (many of them) to this day bear honourable scars, I know th«? a fevy m these men, a negligible minority, have behaved discreditably at times; but there can be no doubt whatever that the great body of them, having done noble work for the cause we espoused as our cause, returned to play their part as citizens in a score of honest calling". They deserve the goodwill of New Zealanders, and the hearty sympathy of the New Zealand Government. When they manifest any desire or willingness to join in t'.ie work, of home defence, they certainly deserve encouragement. Well, I heard just now they are being encouraged. In the first place, there are at least 120 of them fit to serve in Wellington; andj the military authorities of these parts-precious few of whom have smelt powder seriously ignited—have officially informed them that any company numbering more than 65 men is contrary to the regulations. Further, that if they formed any such company, they must be prepared to provide themselves with a rifle range, makingsuch due provisions of surrounding space as shall serve for the security of the public. The suggestion is, apparently that they might put a f?W hundrgf! thousands or so into the purchase of a square mile or two of country In Miramar or some other convenient suburb. It is all very pretty, but it is all pure farce. I am content to leave the matter for the present; but I think the general idea is one that returned troopers in . all parts of the Dominion might profitably consider. A handful of men inured to discipline is at any time worth a corps of volunteers without experience. These returned troopers would be citizen soldiers in the best sense. They would stiffen and hearten men with whom they worked. In case of actual warfare nothing could prevent them taking the lead. They are themselves quite enthusiastic about tha matter; and enthusiasm like that we cannot affprd to quench. The "New Zealand Times,",directed by a golfing editor, supported by a staff that is not notable athletic, shows an inclination to fight the good fight against brutality in psort. Last week, an energetic leader whimsically fulminated agaim t the brutality of "boxing exhibitions," which must never be confused with prize-fights. The protest is warranted. There can be no doubt that boxing contests in Wellington, although they are attended by Lord Plunket and many just persons, certainly do appeal by their occasional brutality to a good part of the crowd that wifnesses them. Therp is nothing in the least degree excusable in brutal boxing; and whenever boxing is brutal it certainly should be put down, so far at least, as public "exhibitions" are concerned. I don't think that anybody is likely to accuse me of effieminacy, so far as sports are concerned; but I luve often found myself disgusted by a boxing contest, just as I should be disgusted by a bull-fight. I see no sense in the beastly scattering of olood, be it brute or human. Boxing adds a form of athletic exercise between men of goodwilll, is admirable. But it is best confined to the private house or gymnasium. So few men have the necessary equanimity of temper to ba trusted to exhibit in public, especially when there is any money at stake. I don't mini when I have to run up against gore as part of the day's business. Once for a space T was out war corrjjpoading in a very wild country; and when I got over the first funk (all the mo;e horrid because I dared n)i show it), I found the thing rather exhilarating. On another occasion I wa3 sitting in a rather low down Siilors' tavern in Lai Bazar in Calcutta. A couple of amiable debaters op ned fire at each other with revol Vsiß. Tnoir aim was so bad that fiey were both in some clanger, and m, dive under the table was one of tne swiftest things I ever dreamt of. Only we were talking about the "New Zodl.uid Limes." To-day the paper has an excellent article on "Rough football." It is an editorial article, and I commend to you a pas--Bj#e or so:— "The m.'thod of our representative

Rugby footballers have become a public scandal. The element of rough play —of deliberate, malicious, dangerous rough play—is entering into the game to such an extent that there are many people formerly enthusiastic supporters of the pastime who declare that they will not go to witness a football match again. In the ordinary club games private vendettas are frequently fought out under cover of the rules of Rugby, acd many of the injuries inflicted by players on players are deliberate and quite intentional. But when this element is introduced into international contests the result is to create a scandal, and animosities which live and grow. It is now an optn secret that the Anglo-Welsh combination which is now in our midst has suffered very seriously from the downright malevolence of members of the teams with whom they have come into conflict. It is not, to our disgrace be it said, a mere chapter of harmless accidents which has deprived the British combination of some of its best men. In nearly every match "accidents" have occurred which could have been avoided if the local representatives had played the ball mora and the man less—that is to say if they had played like sports • men instead of roughs, with chivalry instead of brutality.

The stigma of this sort of thing unfortunately psrmeates the whole Rugby game. It is unfair that it should be so, but it does. Whole teams are made to sulfer in reputaton u cause of tne futility of isolated members. Some men when they play football becoma prey to a sort of temporary dementia. They lose their heads and are overcome with a fury of resentment." This is strong talk, but it is undoubtedly true talk, and Mr Freeth deserves credit for his courage in admitting such timely protests into his editorial columns. Indeed, Mr Freeth is showing himself to be a very alert and able journalist. He has no very notable literary ability, and in some respects his paper might be vastly improved. And there remains this big matter of rough sport. No sane man objects to the roughness properly incidental to any manly game. But the roughness the "New Zealand Times" complains of is without excuse, and it is unahppily becoming very frequent. The visiting AngloWelsh team has the gravest cause of grievance It is poor hospitality, and worse policy, to bring Englishmen to compete in our national game," and then brutally to ill-use them on the field. It is the sort of policy that can only result in one of two things. Either reputable English players and organisations will turn with disgust from our invitations; or they will take up the weapon of retaliation. These are easily procurable in some of the counties' footballers who, if it comes to brutality, can heat us badly at our own game. If the weapon of retaliation is once adopted, matches may easily become orgies of blood, and the game may speedily riot horriby on towards its sure extinction. The remedy, ere it is too late, is in the hands of the Rugby Union. Let men who persist in brutal play be sternly disqualified for life. The penalty may seem harsh, but it would prove salutory. A man who saw several of the professional matches played by New Zealanders in England last season, and who recently saw two of the international matches played here, a day or two ago assured me that he saw nothing in England in any degree comparable to the foul play he saw in New Zealand. The thing has obviously gone far enough.