COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2492, 4 May 1909, Page 6

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

[To The Editor.] Sir,—Would you kindly permit me to express a few views, as to the compulsory service, of youths, between the ages of 17 years and 21, about to become enforced by Act of Parliament in this country. _ As you are aware, Sir, the great majority'of the people very wisely approve of the step about to be taken, seeing, by the action of their representatives, that those to ’ whom they have entrusted their national interests are determined to maintain the freedom and stability of their country. Now, Sir, as far as your humble servant can see there is one flaw, and a very serious flaw, in the bill, and that one is the limiting of the compulsory training to youths up to 21 years o'f age. Why, Sir, are young men up to 25 years of age not included? Every one knows that the pick and backbone of New Zealand are the young men engaged in the country, working either upon stations, bush-felling, road-mak-ing, or at any of the multitudinous jobs which are to be found in the country, each in its different way training these men to be of infinite value in time of war. Where will you find better or . hardier men than those in the backblocks? Where else will you find men who can, if necessary, do a sixteen hours tramp, as I have seen done, in the heat of a summer’s day, and yet have some reserve force left in them when they returned to their quarters? Men who laugh at hardships and danger, and who will turn their hands to anything. These, Sir, are the men the country ought to have trained and who in most cases will escape their training because the Bill does not include single men up to the age of 25 years. Now, as to the training of boys between the ages of 17 and 21 years. Provided we could be absolutely sure that peace was assured for another five years the Bill would have done its work, because by that time many of these young fellows would be in their very prime and, whilst engaged in their work in the country, would be getting fitted for war by the very nature of their work/ which would teach them many, many things which would be of infinite use in a campaign. And so we would have a fairly large and efficient force to defend us. As we are all aware, peace cannot be assured at present, seeing what firebrands there- are at this moment all over the universe. There are men who for their own interests would take a deep pleasure in forcing on a war between great nations and into which .others would be inevitably drawn. Owing to our peculiar position in the world’s politics such a war would cause a. vast amount of anxiety and, indeed, might see us dragged into it against our wish. Now, such a disaster might happen within the next two years, and where, Sir, would be our field army ? The nation would possess a force of young fellows from 17 years-to 23 years of age, and the big majority of these youths, owing to their age alone, would be little use in the actual field. We have, Sir, thousands of young men away in the country, roughing it, using their eyes and ears such as very few people round our centres of population do, excelling in tho saddle and every kind of work which is making men of them in every sense of the word. Why, Sir, I ask again, should these young hardy fellow; escape from their obvious duty? Of course many will say, “Oh, the backblocks men will come pouring in if there is war.” I -admit that, but if these men are not trained they cannot be sent straight into. the field, and the first engagements of a war in our country might be fraught with the most momentous results. Let those who are in favor of compulsory training force the Minister to increase the age of those liable to service and so, when trouble arises, whatever be the result, they will have the knowledge that they let no chance pass them in the palmy days of peace to ensure the safety and stability of the beautiful country in her glorious independence.—l am, etc., “AN EX-ENGLISH VOLUNTEER.”