The Duty of Citizenship.

Gisborne Times, 11 October 1912, Page 4

The Duty of Citizenship.

n The new course which it is proposed to adopt in the

case of passive resisters aga-

inst the universal military training scheme was,, it appears, the subject of a very interesting speech by Hon. James Allen (Minister for Defence) in the House of Representatives last night. It might i>2 recapitulated that what is j now suggested is that military detention should be substituted for impri- | somnent as punishment for refusal to register or render the personal service required under the law. As to the character of the detention, Mr Allen explained that it would take place in camp or in ordinary barracks or barracks grounds, though it might be necessary to use properly-prepared detention barracks. What is intended in this regard is that youths in detention should be required to perform the ordinary drills prescribed for the Forces. Resisters would be committed I to detention for 28 days, and during j that period would be allowed to go to their ordinary work on their honor that they would return each evening to detention. In this connection, Mr Isitt, the member for Christchurch North, raised an important ' point when he inquired how it was proposed to proceed in the event of any youths maintaining a defiant attitude even whilst in detention. Mr Allen, however, intimated that the military authorities could be trusted to persevere with the punishment until the delinquents could see the error of their ways. •‘They will simply have to sit down there till they do, and if i they still refuse to do the drills they will have to sit down and do nothing." is how he put matters. But any “resister” will, he subsequently remarked, not be allowed an undue length of time in which to meditate over the position. If an offender after a fair delay refuses to alter his attitude, the authorities would have to fall back on the still retained alternative 01 having imprisonment imposed. The ! desire of the Government was, howj ever, that there should be no necessity for the gaols to be used at all in connection with the scheme. If a youth broke away from detention there would of course be no option but to report the matter to the police. What would be done even in such a case would be that, every effort would be made to obviate the necessity of imprisonment. The penalty for an offence of the kind would, it was proposed, be forty-eight hours’ additional detention. As another means towards avoiding imprisonment, it would bo provided that if an offender refused to pay a fine it would be possible to collect it by means of an attachment order against his wages. The Minister, it appears, assured members that there would be no weakness on the part of the Government on the matter. its purpose was to make everyone feel his responsibility to his country. “By the proposed system of detention,” lie added, “it is hoped to persuade the youths opposed to thescheme to do their duty. If, however, the proposal does not effect the desired object further legislation might have to be brought down next year.” As is well known, it was Mr Allen who so ably assisted Sir Joseph Ward to have the present defence scheme placed on the Statute Book, It is not surprising, therefore, to learn' that his effort to still further improve the law in this direction met with the somewhat unusual compliment of hearty applause by members of both sides of the House upon the conclusion

of liis remarks last night. The Goveminent’s proposal in this regard will,, we should say, he equally popular outside the House.