Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-04-02

country is the home. and which,
everybody knows. is opposed to war,
rev people supposed that more than
handful of Britons would be capa-
bic of proclaiming themselves unwill-
ing to fight for their country on con-
sclehtious grounds. Each of the big
tribunals has to- deal with dozens of
'con. obs" daily the following ex-
traordinary dialogu" being typical of
many. The applicant for exemption
quoted is an electrician at big Lon
don music hall.
The chairman of the tribunal: IF an
enemy came up to you and tried to
murder your mother and break up
your home what would you do
Applicant: That is rather a difficult
question to answer. 1t would all de-
pend on my state of mind at the time
The chairman: LAS a man. say what
you would do
Applicant: Il would protest but [
would not kill
The chairman: Suppose Zeppelin
were dropping bombs on your home and
you had anti-aircraft gun in your
hand. what would you do"
Applicant: Il don't see what I could
The chairman: Would you stand with
the gun in your hand and allow the
bomb to kill your mother"
Applicant: Yes. 1 think I should
object on moral grounds. ! think that
war is wrong and that no man ought
y to take part in it,
So far as one remembers not a single
one OF the many conscientious objec-
tors has been a Quaker though MANY
have described themselves as members
of weird sects One of these calls ~
self the Chrstadelphians and the man
who claimed TO belong to it declared
that the sect had kept it's existence
PREV qulet since conscription was
with young men" None of these CON
scientious DIRECTORS to fighting is ex-
cused from doing his Bit They are
passed 1or non-combatant SERVICE"
vague phrase that may mean ANYTHING
Ihey won't be forced to fight of course
but they probably will be asked to do
something either so dangerous. such as
stretchcr bearing on the battlefield or
NINE sweeping i'll ira wler, or SO in
tensely dlsagreeable and nasty that
they VIII be glad to exchange for duty
in the firing line
Just now sincere are these objectorso
Inns Is question that many folk are
asking themselves. though the press
fe1rains from discussing it, through
fear of making conscientious obiec-
tion even more popular than it is
Apropos. Lord Derby. speaking in the
mouse or lords. deprecated the report
ing In the press of the views of the
con. obs" on the ground that il ON
couraged others to take a simiIar Of
ti,ude. 1T is unlikely, however. that
ar or even large percentage of these
men are merely hypocritical towards
IN me present mood of the nation it
requires courage of a kind for an able
Dodled young man. without ties to saw
mat ne is unwilling to fight for the
nag because he doesn't believe in war
the same kind of courage as that nos
sessed by the suicide-for the certain
result is social ostracism, at all events
oy those whose men are fighting, II
nothing worse. On the whole, one
doesn't envy the con OBJ" In seaside
town this week one of them was burn
ed in effigy outside of his own house
by derisive crowd. Only last even
Ing. too. London newspaper urged
that a law should be passed making
1t an offense to give employment to
one, or. ii this was impossible, that
the public should boycott any firm
known to have a ICON. OBJ" on its pay
roll.
What does the church think of the
conscientious objector"? Many of
these christadelphians. Brotherhood of
Man-ites and the rest have all the
Bible passages that condemn killing
at their fingers ends. though here and