Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.
To the Editor.
Sir Whilst I am strongly in favor of
compulsory military training, as it stands,
in my humble opinion the law is one-sided,
unjust, and cruel. Comment has
been made on laxity in the enrolment of
young lads, and surprise expressed at the
small number so far enlisted. No attempt
has been made to show the injustice that
is the cause of great bitterness amongst
the lads. Let me point out three unjust
conditions which the lads greatly object to,
with the strong support of parents and
others'. Duration of service. 2. Non
consideration of the present cadets. 3.
The preservation of the larrikin and freedom
of the hoodlum. In the first place,
young lads of 14 years and upwards this year
must enlist and carry arms until 25 years
of age, after which a further year is to be
added by reserve. This means a full term
of 12 years in alL which is simply preposterous,
and against the advancement of the
lad in _ any sphere of labor, clerical or
otherwise. . In the second place, no consideration
is given to the present cadets.
I may mention two boys, aged this year 16
and 14 respectively. Both have served
nearly three years in the cadets, and therefore
must now register and serve until 26,
making in all 13 and 15 years of service Is
this not most unjust, especially when at the
time of joining their parents had to pay for
their uniforms, c? Now, uniforms are
to be given free. But there is a greater injustice.
Those at present forming the
cadets have shown true patriotism in freely
and voluntarily entering the ranks, loyally
and dutifully giving their time and attention
to drills, making good progress and
striving for officership. Yet these lads are
to be lowered to a level of rank with those
now forced, and who, if not for compulsion,
would never wear khaki. This is most un-
just to the loyal little soldiers. But the
third injustice is even worse. There are
lads 18 years this year, free of compulsory
training, yet the poor cadet goes on. in
the law had compelled each and every lad
between the ages of 17 and 21 to enlist, and
do at least four or five years' compulsory
training, it would have been a splendid
idea. There should be no exception, unless
the lad could show five years as a cadet,
for which half-time should be allowed as
consideration. At present it is fostering
to a great extent the larrikin and the hood-
him for some years; that is until the cadet
reaches that age, when no doubt the instructions
at drill would have served to divert
his attention to something
higher than the "push." Even now
it is not safe for a woman, nor occasionally
is it for a lad in khaki to
walk about some of the parks of
this fair city, especially alone. Especially
on East-terrace ladies and cadets are continually
being insulted by a well-known
push. How much better if these hoodlums
were forced to enlist, and do at least
one night's drill weekly. It would do them
no harm, and at least be an assurance of
safety for ladies for one night in the week.
-I am, at-, the late
FREDERIC
$