"Private" Archibald Baxter wasn't your usual type of soldier. In fact, his attitude was that he was not, and should not be, a soldier at all. His incomparable account of his time with the New Zealand Army, "We Will Not Cease," is a tale of violence and brutality that shocked me when I first read it and shocks me still.
I hesitate to include Archibald Baxter's story in my blog. There is nothing which can improve on what he wrote himself. But Archibald Baxter either did not have access to his Army records or, if he did, did not care what the Army thought of him.
Archibald Baxter's refusal to fight came from his deep-seated religious beliefs. His book is a very personal account and it is not easy to match its incidents accurately with those recorded in his Army records. They show that he was inducted on May 1, 1917. He left New Zealand for the war on July 14, 1917.
Between those dates he, and others, although maintaining that they were not part of the Army, were put before a Court-martial.
A brief extract from his Army Records:
On arrival at his home port of Dunedin he was given a card with details of a hospital appointment — and threatened with consequences if he did not attend. He attended.
He was unaware at the time that he was attending a Medical Board, assembled to enquire into his condition prior to formal discharge from the army. He objected, at this meeting, to his treatment and stated that he would not answer further questions unless he was treated with respect — that respect, he was given.
He was also required to report to the police — just a formality, he was told; every soldier was required to do so. This, he discovered, was not the case. On objecting to being made to report to the police, he was told that it would not be necessary. Information on him could be obtained by other means.
"And so," says Archibald McColl Learmont Baxter, farmer, in the final sentence of 'We Will Not Cease', "my experiences with the army ended."
It must have been a strangely familiar feeling for Archibald to attend the trial of his nephew, John Archibald, in 1941, appealing against his drafting for the second "great" war.
After the Second World War, Archibald and Millicent continued their support of the peace movement, then a more important cause than ever. Archibald died in 1970 and Millicent in 1984. They are buried together at the cemetery in Green Island, Dunedin.
Archibald Baxter's refusal to fight came from his deep-seated religious beliefs. His book is a very personal account and it is not easy to match its incidents accurately with those recorded in his Army records. They show that he was inducted on May 1, 1917. He left New Zealand for the war on July 14, 1917.
Between those dates he, and others, although maintaining that they were not part of the Army, were put before a Court-martial.
COURT MARTIAL
CLAUSE 35 MEN
"WE ARE NOT SOLDIERS."
[Special to The Sun.] WELLINGTON, April 2. Four compulsorily enlisted men who had refused to obey lawful orders in the military camps were brought before a court martial at the Buckle Street barracks this morning on charges of insubordination. The Court consisted of Colonel C. B MacDonald, I.G.S., Chief Infantry Instructor, Major D. R. Menzies and Major W. Sim. Lieutenant D. G. Todd was present as officer under instruction, and Captain W. P. B. Thring was the military prosecutor.
The men charged were Privates Alexander Baxter, Archibald McColl Learmont Baxter, John Baxter, and W. Little. Alexander Baxter was charged with having refused to work when ordered to do so while under detention in Trentham camp. The other three men were charged with having refused to put on detention clothing when ordered to do so. The men had not availed themselves of their right to be represented by counsel.
The cases of the men who had refused to wear detention clothing were taken first. Formal evidence was given by non-commissioned officers to the effect that the men had been ordered to put on the clothing and had refused to do so. The prisoners stated that they had no questions to put to the witnesses. They did not wish to give evidence on their own behalf on oath.
Private Archibald Baxter made a statement regarding his position. He said that he did not consider himself to be a soldier. He had not enlisted. He had been arrested and taken to the camp without notice, and he did not feel called upon to obey military orders.
Colonel MacDonald: What do you mean when you say that you are not a soldier?
Accused: Well, I never joined. I was arrested under section 35 of the Military Service Act. Baxter added that be was a shearer by trade. He had objections to rendering military service. It was against his beliefs to do so. I deny that I am a soldier, he added.
Colonel MacDonald: On the charge sheet you are referred to as a soldier undergoing detention. Can you prove that that is wrong?
Accused: When I was arrested and taken to camp I never took the oath or anything like that.
Colonel MacDonald: Do you contend that the Parliament of this country has no right to pass a law like section 35 of the Military Service Act to call you up?
Accused: I do not dispute the law, but I refuse to do what I believe to be wrong.
Colonel MacDonald: Is that all you wish to say?
Accused: Yes.
Colonel MacDonald: Do you wish to say anything regarding the punishment that this court may feel it necessary to indict?
Accused: If I was a soldier and had taken the oath I would do as I was commanded. As I do not consider myself to be a soldier I do what I think to be right.
Colonel MacDonald: Well, we will leave it at that.
John Baxter and William Little said their attitude was the same as that of Archibald Baxter. They did not wish to add anything to what he had said.
Private Alexander Baxter pleaded not guilty to the charge of having refused to work. After evidence had been taken on the point, he said he claimed not to be a soldier, since he had never been sworn in. He had been called up under section 35 and taken to camp compulsorily. He denied that he was subject to military orders. The accused had no questions to ask the witnesses, and did not wish to call any evidence.
The court was closed for the consideration of the verdicts, which will be announced later. -Sun, 3/3/1917.
LATE NEWS
COURT MARTIAL SENTENCE.
WELLINGTON, April 5. Alexander Baxter, Archibald Baxter, John Baxter, and William Little, who were tried by court martial on Monday on charges of refusing to obey orders while undergoing detention, were found guilty and sentenced to 84 days' imprisonment with hard labour. On completing the sentence they will be sent back to camp. -Sun, 5/4/1917.
A brief extract from his Army Records:
Wellington Detention Barracks, 21/3/17: Disobeying an order. 84 days
Trentham, 25/6/17: Disobeying an order. Refusing to accept his kit. 28 days detention.
Transport 89, 23/7/17: Convicted of offences. Forfeiture of pay, 28 days.
Transport 89, 18/8/17: refusing to obey order of superior officer. Sent to 28 days detention.
22nd corps camp Abele, 16/2/18: hesitated to sweep out med hut when ordered to do so. Forfeits 28 days pay.
The objectors were taken on board "Transport 89" (TS Waitemata) and confined with others to the ship's prison. The following story contains an account of conditions on board.
N.Z. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
British Friends Trying to Trace Them.
Editor, "The Maoriland Worker," — As you are fighting the battle of the conscientious objectors, you may be interested in the following extracts from a letter received by the last English mail. My correspondent is Maria Rowntree, sister of Joshua Rowntree, and widow of John Edward Ellis, the well-known Quaker M.P. for the Rushcliff Division of Nottinghamshire. She writes: "Friends are, of course, terribly concerned about the New Zealand fourteen C.O.s, and have been trying to trace them. E., who is secretary to the committee set up by Friends to keep in touch with C.O.s in prison, has been interviewing the officer in command of the N.Z. Brigade, and says she never came up against such 'adamant' before! Further inquiries resulted in hearing that no English Department had any power over the N.Z. deportees, neither the War Office nor the Home Office. E. tells me our people are doing all they can, but it is a question of jurisdiction between N.Z. or English authorities. It is very difficult to get information.because of the fear of interference with the colony. You know how the colony resents this, and our Government is only too glad to leave thorny questions alone." And yet Sir James Allen has told us often he can do nothing, as the treatment of C.O.s is in "the hands of the Imperial authorities"!—-Yours, etc., CONSTANT READER.
SIR JAMES ALLEN IN REPLY.
The following is a copy of a letter forwarded by Sir James Allen in reply to the Dunedin Women's International League's demand for the release of the Objectors:
Wellington, December 18,1917. Dear Madam, — I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 11th inst. The Military Service Act provides that every citizen of New Zealand of military age who is medically fit should do service for his country in these trying times. I cannot understand how you can disagree with me when I say that this is a fair and democratic proposal. In your letter you protest against the treatment meted out to conscientious objectors. No one regrets more than I do that it has been necessary to punish in any way the conscientious objectors, but it is obvious that unless something were done consciences would develop to an abnormal degree. I regret very much that the men cannot be released, as it would only lead to discrimination in favor of those who were not prepared to take up the burden that other men have taken up. — Yours faithfully, J. ALLEN, Minister of Defence.
CANTERBURY WOMEN PROTEST.
The following resolution was passed at the last meeting of the Canterbury Women's Institute: —
"The C.W.I. is amazed to learn that the Minister of Defence confesses himself unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the fourteen conscientious objectors who were picked out from a number of exactly similar objectors and deported from New Zealand last year. It views with intensest anxiety and indignation the admission of Sir James Allen that he has so completely surrendered his responsibilities in regard to New Zealand-born subjects. Letters from England show that, at the time of writing, men deported as conscientious objectors from New Zealand were in irons at Sling Camp, and that they had been subjected to innumerable persecutions, including the horrors of the bull ring; that eight of them had been sent over to France, where there was grave danger of them being shot 'for refusing to obey orders in the presence of the enemy.'
"The C.W.I, would urge on the electors of New Zealand the necessity of making strong protest against such delegation of responsibility on the part of the New Zealand Government.
"If it be considered by the people of New Zealand that the military authorities should exercise the power given them by the Army Act to shoot conscientious objectors to military service, the sentence should be carried out publicly here in New Zealand, and not in an underhand manner for which the New Zealand Government does not dare to assume responsibility."
RECENT JAILINGS.
The following conscientious objectors have been sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labor for refusing to be soldiers: —
WILLIAM MCKENZIE. HOWARD HOPKINS. DANIEL BROSNAN.
The following received twelve months' hard labor for refusing to be soldiers: — CHARLES E. WARREN. ARTHUR BURROWS.
R. E. WATSON. SENT TO THE FIRING LINE.
The following is extracted from "The Friend," 30th November, 1917: —
Harry Patton, one of the New Zealand C.O.s sent to France, writes: — "I received your letter yesterday; it gave me a great deal of comfort. I am in an isolation camp at present at Etaples for 21 days. Three of us reached Etaples on 28th October, refused to parade, and were taken before an officer. The other two took on stretcher-bearing in the R.A.M.C. Three were placed in a tent by ourselves for three days, and then transferred to the R.A.M.C. I refused to parade, and was taken before the officer. He told me I had been transferred to the R.A.M.C., and that I would be saving life. I told him anything I did in the military was helping to take life, and that I would not do it, so I was put in the guard-room for a few, days. Then I was ordered out with a pack on. I refused and the pack was fastened on to me. I refused to walk with the pack, AND WAS DRAGGED ABOUT TWO HUNDRED YARDS and placed in a tent. For three days I was ordered to parade every day; kept refusing; had officers to see me, trying to talk me round; taken before a chaplain, gave him my views; was placed in detention. They tried to get me to work in the garden; refused. Then measles broke out. There is another CO. in the guard-room named Briggs, who has relations in Yorkshire. THREE OTHER C.O.s HAVE BEEN SENT UP TO THE FIRING-LINE — LITTLE, BAXTER, AND BALLANTYNE. I don't know what has become of them. The officer told me I would be sent up there, too, AND WOULD PROBABLY BE SHOT. The two in the R.A.M.C. have refused to take the oath or to take pay; so I don't know how they will get on."
Later. "I am all right. I am isolated at present, at a base camp 'somewhere in France.' I cannot give you all the news, as you might not get the letter."
A C.O.s LETTER.
The January number of "The Green Ray" prints a letter from one of the deported Conscientious Objectors, written at sea on August 14 of last year. He describes the removal of himself and his comrades from jail to the transport: "Eight of us — Briggs, Penwright, Ballantyne, Aden, Patton, Gray, Saunderson, and Harland — were brought down from the jail after dark on Friday, 12/7/17, and put on board the boat. We had no idea where we were going until we were on the wharf. We refused to go on board, and were put on by force. Although we did not resist, we were practically carried on board. I myself was carried on the shoulder of a military policeman as though I was a bag of chaff. On Saturday morning the Baxters and Little were brought down from the barracks and Maguire and Kirwin from Trentham. The 'clink' is right almost in the corner of the boat, so that we get a pretty bad shaking up if there is any sea. For the first few days the one porthole was not open, and the door was kept locked, so that the only ventilation was from a small opening along the top of the partition which divides the 'clink' from one of the dormitories. With the exception of one or two, we were all more or less seasick, and we could not get anything to be sick into, consequently the atmosphere became almost indescribable; to use the officer's own words, 'the place smelt like a hyena's cage.' The authorities lost no time in getting to work on us. The ship's sergeant-major . . . threatened that if we didn't help to sweep up and clean the ship, he would sweep the ship with us. Of course, he was told to go ahead. About the third day out he came in and ordered us to put on the uniform, and on our refusing he brought in the military police and took us out one by one to the top of one of the hatches and there, in front of the crowd of laughing, jeering soldiers, forcibly stripped us and put the uniform on. . . . . I was greatly surprised to notice a number of the officers, who are generally supposed to be gentlemen, apparently enjoying this degrading spectacle; that also cameras were very much in evidence. None of us attempted to resist, but took it all I with a quiet smile, and as soon as we got back to the 'clink' immediately i took off the uniform in spite of threats to tie us up unless we kept it on. We lay on our beds all day in our under-clothing, and in the evening they gave us back our own clothes which of course, we lost no time in getting into. Kirwin was so ill when carried out to have the uniform put on that he had to be taken to the hospital, where he has been ever since. We heard to-night that he is to he sent back from Capetown. A few days later, owing to the influence of the doctor, we got the portholes opened in the daytime; a little later we were allowed on deck for exercise three times a day."
The writer also states that they learned that the majority of the soldiers disapproved of the way in which they are being treated. He also pays a tribute to the Presbyterian chaplain and the Red Cross men. He concludes: —
"I expect they have been spreading yarns about that we have given in; if so, when this reaches you you will be able to refute any such statement, as not one of us has the slightest, intention of giving in, whatever they may do to us."
WERE THEY RETURNED TO ENGLAND?
The "Green Ray" prints the following footnote to the foregoing letter: "Since the above was written, the brave men named reached England, and were sent to the war zone in France. Later, we learn from relatives, they were returned to a prison in England."
THE CODY BROTHERS.
We also learn from the "Green Ray" that an application was made to the Minister of Defence that Messrs. Patrick and John Cody ("who are believed to be in some military prison," and who have 500 acres of grass seed to harvest) be granted leave until after the grass harvest. The application — which was made "not through financial, religious or family interest, but on account of the public loss, as well as the loss and injustice to the whole Cody family" — was turned down by the Minister.
And so, because a bad and stupid law has been placed on the Statute Book without the consent of the people, the public interest must suffer and the Cody family be faced with ruin.
We note that in his reply to the application referred to, Sir James Allen refers to the Cody brothers as "these soldiers." It is surely time this sort of statement was "cut out." The Codys have consistently refused to be soldiers — and it is for that refusal that they have been dragged from their useful work and flung into jail where their usefulness is nil.
A MONSTROUS SUGGESTION
Some time ago it was announced in the "Dominion" — Government organ at Wellington — that, since the British Government did not wish to be troubled with men who would not fight, no more Conscientious Objectors would be sent to England from N.Z. It is now stated, however, by the Wellington correspondent of a southern paper, that all the Conscientious Objectors now in jail in New Zealand "will have to go the same way as the preliminary draft." The statement concludes: "They have been kept together in camp here, but this will no doubt be altered, and the men treated as soldiers, with the option of doing combatant or non-combatant duties, and sent to the front in the ordinary course."
The Government owes it to the people to deny this allegation. We venture to say that all that is best in the industrial and political life of N.Z. would indignantly repudiate the mere suggestion that any such policy should be pursued as is suggested. -Maoriland Worker, 30/1/1918.
A REPLY
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
MR HOLLAND AND THE PRIME MINISTER.
The Labour candidate for Wellington North, Mr H. E. Holland, has furnished the following statement in reply to the Prime Minister’s retorts regarding his allegations as to the treatment of conscientious objectors:-
In the first place, Mr Massey makes quite erroneous quotations of my statements. He could easily have ascertained either from myself or the comprehensive report of my speech published by the ‘Maoriland Worker’ the exact statements made by me. Instead of doing this, he appears to have based his denial on the necessarily condensed reports published in the dailies or on hearsay.
I said: “Fourteen lads .... had been flung into prison here, gaoled two and three times over for the one offence — a principle vile in law,’ etc. Mr Massey makes me say that they were gaoled "three or four times for the one offence." He says my statement is grossly untrue. Let the facts decide. The three Baxter brothers were each sentenced to 8 days in Alexandra Barracks, then to 84 days in the common gaol, and again to 28 days in Alexandra Barracks, from which prison they were taken to the transport. Mr W. Little received three similar sentences. Mr Mark Briggs served a first sentence of 30 days, and was serving a second sentence of 84 days when deported. Mr Garth. Ballantyne had served one sentence of 28 days in Alexandra Barracks, and had almost completed a second sentence of 84 days in the common gaol when deported. There are also conscientious objectors serving second sentences in the gaols of New Zealand at the present time.
I was in error to the extent of one year when I stated that some of them were "boys of 20.” I should have said “boys of 21.” Mr Ballantyne, who was arrested on March 21st, had attained his twenty-first year on February 10th. Mr Fred Adin was a month older. How Mr Massey now makes them 23 when arrested is for him to explain.
Mr Massey is again in error when he credits me with having said: "They were taken Home in irons.” I spoke from very complete notes, of which the "Worker" report is an exact copy. What I said was: ... “they were taken from the gaol in the dark of night and forcibly placed on a transport. When they were taken out of gaol they were not told where they were going. They were carried on the transport like bags of produce. And the transport had left New Zealand before their mothers knew what had been done. Their mothers were given no opportunity of saying good-bye to them, although they were going to almost certain death. They were herded together in a close prison cabin, and when they became were not given vessels to vomit in, with the result that the officer remarked that the cabin ‘smelt like a hyena's den.' Three of them were left at Capetown, being too ill to proceed further; and the remainder, along with a number of troops, were transferred to another boat — which also carried passengers! After they left Capetown, they were brought on deck, and their own clothes were stripped off them and thrown overboard — he had seen a photo of the incident — and they were forcibly dressed in khaki. They took the khaki off, and were at one time naked on deck. Later they were left with only their singlets and underpants on. On arrival in England they were taken to Sling Camp in irons, and were going about there in singlets and underpants. They were subjected to treatment, and later some of them were taken in irons to France and threatened with the death penalty.”
Mr Massey says that because “some of them would not observe ordinary cleanliness, their civilian outfits were condemned by the medical officer, and they were compelled to dress in uniform.” My information is to the effect that all of them were forcibly dressed in uniform. A soldier writing from Sling Camp on October 12th to a friend at Invercargill, says: “Before we left Wellington they put about a dozen conscientious objectors on board. There was a great go to get them to put on the uniform, but they refused. .... After we left the Cape it was forcibly put on them, and their own clothes were thrown overboard. . . . After the uniform was put on them, they were brought round in front of where the lady passengers were - it was evidently thought they would not pull it off there, but off it came.” The ladies fled, according to the writer, and the conscientious objectors were left naked on the deck.
Mr Harry Patton, in a letter published in the Christchurch “Press” (December 28th). wrote; “I was ordered to put on the uniform on the boat, refused, and was forcibly stripped and forcibly dressed in the uniform, pulled it off, had my clothing returned at night. Transhipped to another boat at Capetown, kept at the stem of the boat a few nights, clothing taken off and thrown overboard, turned the hose-pipe, on me, cold water, then dressed in the uniform, and numerous other little insults all the way.”
One of the deported men, in a letter written at sea on October 14th (and printed in the "Green Ray,” Dunedin) described how they were taken from jail after dark on July 12th last, and put on board the transport. They refused to embark, and were forcibly put, on board. "I myself was carried on the shoulder of a military policeman as though I was a bag of chaff,” he wrote. He then describes how they were placed in the clink almost in the comer of the boat, and for the first few days the one port hole was not open and the door was kept locked, consequently there was little ventilation. They were nearly all seasick, and, in the words of the writer, “we could not get anything to be sick into, consequently the atmosphere became almost indescribable: to use the officer’s own words, ‘the place smelt like a hyena’s cage.’” He then goes on to say that they were eventually ordered to put on the uniform, and “on our refusing he (the officer) brought in the military police and took us out one by one to the top of one of the hatches and there, in front of the crowd of laughing, jeering soldiers, forcibly stripped us and out the uniform on. . . .I was greatly surprised to notice a number of the officers, who were generally supposed to be gentlemen, apparently enjoying this degrading spectacle; that also that cameras were very much in evidence. None of us attempted to resist, but took it all with a quiet smile, and as soon as we got back to the ‘clink’ immediately took off the uniform in spite of threats to tie us up unless we kept it on. We lay on our beds all day in our underclothing, and in the evening they gave us back our own clothes, which, of course, we lost no time in getting into. Kirwin was so ill when carried out to have the uniform put on that he had to be taken to the hospital, where he has been ever since.”
“Mr Massey again misrepresents mo when he states that I said: "Massey, Ward, and Allen had promised that they would not be persecuted or forced to wear uniform." In the first place Mr Massey knows quite well — as all who have listened to my addresses know — that I do not descend to the discourtesy of dropping the prefixes of my opponents. What I said, referring to the persecution of the conscientious objectors, was: ‘‘This notwithstanding that Sir James Allen had promised a deputation that they would be subjected to no persecution.” Mr Massey says, “No such promise was made.'’ I was a member of the deputation that waited on Sir James Allen in July last, to protest against the deportations, and I have a very clear recollection of Mrs Ballantyne (mother of Mr Garth Ballantyne) asking Sir James for an assurance that the lads would not be subjected to persecution during the voyage to England. The Minister's reply was that “they would be subjected to no persecution whatever.”
In addition to the way they were treated on the transports, letters from soldiers and others in England show what other treatment the objectors were called upon to endure. The London “Call” of Thursday, November 15th. contained the following, under the heading “Brought from New Zealand in Irons”: — “Further particulars are to hand respecting the New Zealand conscientious objectors to whom reference was made recently in these columns. Of the 14 that were embarked for England with the 28th New Zealand Reinforcements, to which they were deemed to be attached, three of them — Saunderson, of North Wairou, and two Baxter brothers, of Otago, were put off the ship at Capetown sis they were too ill to be taken further. The rest were taken to Sling camp, Salisbury, where they remained in irons in the guardroom for several weeks. Eight of them have new been sent over to France. Most of them went over handcuffed, and therefore still resisting. Their names are: Ballantyne, Harland, Patton, Little, Baxter, Briggs, Maguire, and Kirwan. Of the other three, one is in Codford Military Hospital, suffering from dysentery (Adin of Foxton), and two are still in Sling camp (Gray, of Canterbury, and Penwright, of Tasmania).
One soldier “mentioned seeing one of them forced to put on a pack for France. He threw it off immediately. It was again put on, and he was handcuffed. He then sat down, and was kicked, along at the heels of the draft.”
On October 27th Mr Patton wrote to his relatives: “I am being taken over to France to-night under arrest. I don’t know what they are going to do with me there, but you will perhaps hear some day.” On October 26th Mr L. Kirwin wrote to his relatives to the same effect.
On November 36th, the 'Friend" — a British religious paper — printed a letter from Mr Patton, in which he stated that three of them reached Etaples on October 28th; they refused to parade, and were taken before an officer, by whom he was sent to the guard-room for a few days. His letter runs: “Then I was ordered out with a pack on. I refused, and the pack was fastened on to me. I refused to walk with the pack, and was dragged about two hundred yards and placed in a tent. . . There is another conscientious objector in the guard-room named Briggs, who has relations in Yorkshire. Three other conscientious objectors have been sent up to the firing-line — Little, Baxter, and Ballantyne. I don’t know what has become of them. The officer told me I would be sent up there, too, and would probably be shot.”
We now have Mr Massey making the curious statement that “there were five of those men who stated that they were conscientious and religious objectors. These latter were not compelled to wear uniform, and were not sent to France.” Mr Massey’s statement does not square with information in the possession of myself and others.
The whole 14 were conscientious objectors — some for religions reasons, some for Socialist reasons, and some for Irish reasons. Three of them were left at Capetown ill; eight were sent to France; and was ill in Codford Hospital: Adin and Gray were still in Sling Camp. Where does Mr Massey, get the five who were "not sent to France" because they professed to be conscientious objectors.
1 note with interest that, while Mr Massey does not admit that these conscientious objectors were taken to France in irons, he is prepared to justify the outrage if it really happened.
Mr Massey has made no attempt to reply to my exposure of the treatment of conscientious objectors at Featherston only the other day. Neither has he deigned to explain why his Government dragged the fourteen away by night without giving their mothers any opportunity whatever of bidding them good-bye. It is not at all true that my statements “were grossly exaggerated, and made for the purpose of prejudicing the administration of the Military Service Act in the eyes of the public.” They were made by way of an honest endeavour to save the young men and boys of this country from becoming in a general sense the victims of such atrocities as characterise the conscript service of Prussia and other militaristic countries, and they were further made in the interests of the brokenhearted mothers of New Zealand.
I take this opportunity to challenge Mr Massey to set up a Royal Commission — not a military tribunal — to investigate this matter, and to permit the return of the deported conscientious objectors for this purpose. Nothing that has ever happened has wrought such evil to our national life as this one incident; I venture to say that it has shocked the finer feelings of every honest-minded militarist, to say nothing of the many thousands who think otherwise.
In conclusion, in view of the positive discrimination which has characterised the administration of our military law, is not the Prime Minister rather straining the possibilities when he tells us that "in a time of war the Act must be strictly enforced, and administered without fear or favour.” That is a matter, however, that I shall deal with at my election meetings. -NZ Times, 14/1/1818.
THE OBJECTORS
CONSCIENTIOUS AND OTHERWISE
COMPREHENSIVE OFFICIAL STATEMENT
INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTED MEN (EXCERPT)
A statement regarding conscientious .objectors, and particularly the fourteen men who were sent abroad compulsorily last year, was made on Saturday by the Minister of Defence (Sir James Allen). The Minister gave some detailed information concerning the reservists who are alleged in some quarters to have been treated with harshness. The statement was as follows: —
The following is the schedule previously mentioned: —
51,273 David Robert Gray. — Was called up under Section 35, there being several brothers who had not served. Appealed on the ground of religious objection. The military service board found that the religious body to which he belonged (the Testimony of Jesus) was not a body which came within the statute, and dismissed his appeal and sent him to camp. He is one of the persons who has missed satisfying the board that he comes within the status of the religious objector, and can only be classed as a conscientious objector, and nothing remains but for him to obey the law.
51,720 Thomas Percy Harland. — This man was drawn in the third ballot. He did not appeal or make an effort to make his conscientious scruples (if any) known, but treated.the law with contemptuous disregard. He was arrested as a deserter and sent into camp. In camp he refused to obey orders. This man cannot be classed as a conscientious objector, but is a defiant objector.
47,597 William Little. — this man was drawn in the third ballot. He appealed on the grounds of public interest, but the board, after hearing the evidence adduced, did not consider his retention in New Zealand essential, and dismissed the appeal. No question of religious or conscientious objection was raised. In camp he refused to obey orders. He cannot be classed, as a conscientious objector, but is a defiant objector.
53.883 Henry Patton. — This man was called up under Section 35. He appealed on the ground of hardship, as he was a dairy farmer. No question of religious or conscientious objection was raised on the hearing of the appeal, which was dismissed by the board. He was sent into camp, and refused to obey orders. He cannot be classed as a conscientious objector, but is a defiant objector.
51,620 Frederick Adin. — This man was drawn in the sixth ballot, and was also called up under Section 35. He appealed on all available grounds, and claimed in addition to be of foreign extraction. No religious or conscientious objections were referred to at the hearing of the appeal, and the solicitor appearing for the man eventually withdrew the appeal altogether. The military service board dismissed the appeal and sent him into camp, and on arrival there he refused to obey orders. This man cannot be classed as a conscientious objector, but as a defiant objector.
51,621 Garth Carsley Ballantyne. — This man was drawn in the first ballot. He appealed on the grounds that his calling up was contrary to public interest because of his occupation, and a case of hardship to his employers, a firm of surveyors. He was represented by a prominent Wellington solicitor, his case was carefully fought out, and the question of religious or conscientious objection was never raised. The military service beard dismissed the appeal and sent the man into camp, where he refused to obey orders. This man cannot be classed as a conscientious objector, but as a defiant objector. This man wrote a letter which has been largely published and which has been mentioned above.
52,356 Daniel Maguire. — This man was drawn in the fourth ballot, did not take the trouble to appeal, was arrested as a deserter, and sent into camp, where he refused to obey orders. He cannot be classed as a conscientious objector, but as a defiant objector.
51,619 Alexander Baxter, 47,814 Archibald McColl Learmont Baxter, 47,813 John Baxter. — These men were called up under Section 35, and Alexander Baxter was in addition drawn in the first ballot. They all appealed on religious grounds, but, though notified of the hearing, did not take the trouble to attend and place their cases before the board. Their appeals were consequently dismissed and they were sent into camp, where they refused to obey orders. These men cannot be classed as conscientious objectors who have failed to satisfy the board that they are religious objectors within the statute because they did not attempt to satisfy the board, and nothing remains for them but to obey the law; if they do not, they must be classed as defiant objectors.
53,369 Lawrence Joseph Kirwan. — This man was drawn in the fourth ballot, did not take the trouble to appeal, was arrested as a deserter, and sent into camp, where he refused orders. He cannot be classed as a conscientious objector, but as a defiant objector.
51,629 Mark Briggs. — This man was drawn in the third ballot. He appealed on all available grounds, but did not think it worth while to appear in support of his appeal, which the board dismissed. He was sent into camp and refused to obey orders, he cannot be classed as a conscientious objector, but as a defiant objector.
51,626 Lewis Edward Penwright. — This man was drawn in the first ballot, did not take the trouble to appeal, and was arrested as a deserter. He was sent into camp, where he refused to obey orders. He is a defiant objector.
53,969 Albert Ernest Sanderson. — This man was drawn in the third ballot; he appealed on the grounds of religious objection, but did not take the trouble to appear at the hearing of the appeal, which was dismissed for want of evidence. He was sent into camp, where he refused to obey orders. He cannot be classed as a conscientious objector, but is a defiant objector.
"Political Purposes and Disloyal Purposes."
These, then, are the "fourteen lads" whose experiences are being used for political purposes and disloyal purposes, as if they were sufferers for conscience sake. Most of them are merely defiant law-breakers. Some raised no conscientious scruples until faced in camp with the actual necessity of military service; others did not take the opportunity open to them to make their cases good before the Military Service Board.
The addresses of these men are similar, to the addresses of any other soldier, and letters addressed as follows: —
No. _____ 28th Reinforcements, N.Z. Expeditionary Force, G.P.O.. Wellington, N.Z,
will find any of them, and.a similar address will find any soldier wherever he may he. It has been suggested that the Defence Department should know all about these men and what has happened to them. It knows no more about them than about any other soldier. What it knows about every soldier is entered upon his history sheet at Base Records, and is as follows: — 1. The date he embarks. 2. The date he arrives in Sling Camp, England. 3. The date he arrives in any other camp in England. 4. The date he proceeds overseas from England. 5. The date he is posted to a unit. 6. Promotions. 7. Punishments notified in orders. (All the above, except date of embarkation, are extracted from routine orders received by mail long after the actual event.) 8. Any casualties. 9. Any admissions to hospital. These come, except in cases of slight illness, by cablegram, and are notified to next-of-kin and the Press.
No information is received in New Zealand to show where this man's unit is, or what his actual location is when in France. No personal information is available, such as whether a man arrived in irons or whether he was dispatched to France in custody or in irons, and if any such information were required special cable inquiries would be necessitated. The only knowledge usually available as to a man's personal adventures comes from the personal letters which he writes to New Zealand. No individual record can possibly be kept in New Zealand of every man's movements in France, for at the base and in the field every man's locations are constantly changing. So much of the above information as has arrived by mail or cablegram can be obtained from Base Records in regard to the fourteen men in question or in regard to any soldier of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force abroad. -Dominion, 26/2/1918.
On the 22nd of August, 1917, Baxter was handed over to the authorities at Cape Town, having contracted measles. He spent three months in South Africa, before being embarked on another transport, the Llanstephan Castle.
The last day of 1917 saw him arrive in Britain. A month later, France, where he was attached to the 3rd Entrenching Battalion. The Entrenching Battalions were made up of soldiers who were generally regarded as inexperienced due to their recent arrival in France, or were recently returned from hospital.
Two months of physical and psychological abuse followed, culminating in the order that no man would be given food unless they were able to state their service number. It was the final straw for Baxter. One morning, he relates, he woke to a deserted camp. He was clad only in underwear and socks. He wandered around in a daze until picked up by a couple of Canadian soldiers with a horse.
The Official History of the Otago Regiment states that on March 27th and 28th, 1918, the 1st and 3rd Entrenching Battalions were ordered south from their work areas in the Ypres Salient to meet the force of the German Spring Offensive.
Although Baxter was now in hospital and away from the sergeants of the Otago Regiment, his problems were by no means over. Officially, until proven otherwise, he was regarded as a possible deserter and his record includes statements (shown below) taken from doctors and witnesses as to his condition.
Their verdict was clear. Archibald Baxter was insane.
Their verdict was clear. Archibald Baxter was insane.
"states he had been ill for a fortnight previous. headache and sleeplessness, feeling of depression. Had been in the army one year, in France 2 months. Had been a prisoner(?) all the time he had been at the front under escort. States he did not deliberately leave his unit. States he has done no work while at the front. Taken out each day but refused to do anything and will continue to refuse to work in uniform. In hospital takes no interest in newspapers reads nothing. Considered that his views on the war amount to an obsession and that owing to the strain caused by his compulsion in being taken to the front a definite attack of confusion occurred during which he committed the offence. opinion, mental specialist at Bolougne base — "insane" not fit for trial or punishment. Board considers he was not responsible for his actions at the time of the offence. will transfer to "D" block,
________________________________________
24/4/1918: Proceedings of MB (medical board) held at no.8 Stationary Hospital. Evidence produced: — soldier is a conscientious objector. He fell out of the march 29/3/18 between Petit Houvain and Marieux w/o permission and was posted as an absentee. He carried an overcoat and small pack but no rifle. Walked with a stoop and had a vacant look in his eye. He was later found by some canadians with only his underclothes on and was put in a house and led to a dressing station. He had a vacant look in his eyes and would not speak when spoken to. He dimly remembers meeting the canadians. speaks quietly — not emotional. no trouble in the hospital hut.
________________________________________
Medical case sheet
Baxter
caused by his compulsion in being taken to the front a definite attack of confusion occurred, during which he committed the offence.
Measure of responsibility. The offence was obviously not a rational attempt to desert and in my opinion he was insane and not responsible for his actions.
Fitness for trial — no
Fitness for punishment — no
This man is insane.
W D Chambers, Capt RAMC
Mental Specialist
Bolougne Base
_______________________________________________
This is the written statement of Cyril Perey Lealand:
122447 Lealand C P Private, 3rd NZ Entrenching Battalion, NZEF
I am a member of D coy, 3rd Ent. Battalion. There was one C Objector in my company. I could not swear that his name was Baxter, but could identify the man readily. I first saw him at the Corps Camp School, Bertheram (?). He refused to parade and I saw (him) dragged along the ground by two of our men. I never once saw him speak to anyone.
He entrained with us at Abele, when our company left Ypres section, for the Somme to join the Entrenching Brigade. After disembarkation he walked with us all day covering about twenty miles. He was missing when we paraded next morning. He carried an overcoat and small pack but no rifle. He walked along with a stoop, spoke to no one and had a vacant look in his eyes.
____________________________________________________________________
Sir, I No 56889 Gnr L Riley, 93rd Army Brigade, RFA on or about the end of March saw a New Zealand soldier being led on horseback dressed in his underclothes and on enquiring what was the matter with him I was told by his escort that they had found him sitting in a field. The hour was about 8 or about half an hour afterwards. I saw the above mentioned being led on horseback with an overcoat on towards the dressing station. He had a vacant look and would not speak when spoken to.
No 56889 Gnr L Riley
Witness Chambers, Capt RAMC. 8/4/18
__________________________________________________________
MEDICAL REPORT ON AN INVALID
11: Give concisely the essential facts of the history of the disability, noting entries on the Medical History Sheet bearing on the case: Went to France about Deepy under shellfire. Admitted to no8 Stat. Hosp. on 3.4.18 noted as "can remember nothing since his Coy were at Ypres. Headache, sleeplessness, depression. His ideas about war amount to an insane obsession. Refused to obey orders. Came from NZ as a prisoner. admitted to Netley D Block 4.6.18 and transferred to Hapsburg WH 13.5.18. Since dull depressed and apathetic; memory poor, slow concentration, loafs about, doesn't occupy himself and is indifferent to everything. Always a peculiar, solitary man.
12. Give your opinion as to the causation of the disability, stating whether in your opinion it is (a) attributable to or aggravated by service during the present war...(b) constitutional or hereditary...(c) attributable to...intemperance, misconduct &c: Aggravated by service during the present war — constitutional.
13. What is his present condition? Has not improved materially. Dull, very apathetic. Takes no interest in his surroundings. Memory poor, slow cerebration. Denies any auditory hallucinations. (Mildly demented, probably for many years.)
20. Do you recommend —
(a) Discharge as permanently unfit, or yes
(b) change to England? NZ
25/7/1918
_________________________________________
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
TREATMENT AT WANGANUI
In reply to a recent letter of enquiry, the Rev. H. Allen Job is in receipt of a communication from Colonel Tate, Adjutant-General, N.Z. Military Headquarters. The letter is as follows.
"1. Regarding ill-treatment of conscientious objectors at Wanganui — Referring to the subject matter of your letter, the document signed by eight men at Wanganui describing brutal treatment to which they have been subjected, is a document which appears to have been widely distributed, and came under the notice of the Department some time ago. Some of the men who are alleged to have signed it are by no means conscientious objectors, but men who make it a practice to refuse orders from other than conscientious grounds. The matter was immediately enquired into, and although a gross exaggeration, some force had been used. Measures were taken at once to stop any force whatever being used, and a searching investigation into the whole matter has been ordered.
"2. Regarding Archibald Baxter — It is correct that Archibald Baxter has been admitted to hospital on account of his mental condition. Beyond the bare cable, we have no further information. These occurrences, whatever the degree of truth in the reports before you, are most regrettable, but they are the direct outcome of the refusal of a section of the community to fulfil their obligations as citizens.... The really conscientious objector labours under serious disabilities, but the sympathy of many earnest people, who would like to see the lot of the conscientious objector alleviated, is wasted upon men who are in no sense conscientious, but are merely defiant of all control, and willing to be subject to no law but their own inclinations. If you would make practical propositions as to how you think the real conscientious objector should be treated, I have no doubt that the Minister would give such propositions the fullest consideration."
(PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WANGANUI, June 20. At a public meeting held to-night under the auspices of the Wanganui Second Division League, the decision of the Government to hold an enquiry in camera into the alleged brutal treatment of prisoners at Wanganui Detention Barracks was discussed, and a resolution carried urging that the enquiry should be of a public nature. -Press, 21/6/1918.
GRAVE CHARGES
SHOCKING CRUELTY ALLEGED
TREATMENT OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
PUBLIC INQUIRY DEMANDED.
Specific cases of alleged cruelty toward conscientious objector are given in letters which have been forwarded to the Minister for Defence (Sir James Allen) by Mr H. E. Holland, M.P.
Referring to the Wanganui cases, the writer states:-
It is alleged that one conscientious objector who was taken to Wanganui prison about the end of April last, was threatened by an officer, subjected to twenty-four hours in the punishment cell for refusing drill, then sentenced to another twenty-four hours for “insolence” — his judge and accuser being the same officer. When he refused to put on the uniform he was forcibly dressed, and was knocked down and kicked in the ribs while down. He eventually took the uniform off. He was forcibly dressed a second time, and was again knocked about and told that if he took the uniform off again he would be murdered. He again took it off, and was yet again forcibly dressed. This time he had an 80lb pack fastened on his back, and the rifle was tied to his hand. While his hands were tied, his head was bumped against the wall; then he was pushed out into the yard, ordered to march, and struck between the shoulders with the butt of a rifle. This caused the rifle fastened to him to fall from its position. He was ordered to hold the rifle up, one of the guards telling him if he failed to do so he would knock his b--- head off. He refused to hold it, and the guard banged it up against his ear and the side of his face till the blood was streaming down his face. After that they tied the rifle with thick string to his neck, so that it could not fall. Then they ordered him once more to march; and when he refused they took it in turns, two at a time, to force him round the ring and punched him till he was black and blue. He was then dragged along by the hair of the head. A handful of hair was dragged out. This was more than he could stand, and he struck his assailant and knocked him down; whereupon he was rushed by three or four guards struck knocked over, and kicked while down. Asked by an officer was he going to give in, and replying that he was not, he was subjected to still further assault, and was knocked down three times, kicked on the shins, and banged against the wall. An officer threatened him that he would get this treatment everyday as long as he was there. During one of these series of assaults he was kicked over the heart, and suffered for weeks as a result. Eventually, worn out physically and mentally, he gave in and took the uniform.
It is further alleged that another conscientious objector, refusing to take the uniform, was forcibly dressed in denims, handcuffed, and then dragged round the yard by means of a rope tied round his neck. He was kicked and punched at the same time, and pushed against the wall; and at last (it is alleged) “his face was like a piece of steak, and drops of blood were to be seen all round the yard and on the wall.” He was beaten on the hand with a stick, and his hand was swollen abnormally. After having been subjected to this treatment, he was forcibly given a cold bath. A number of other objectors are alleged to have received practically similar treatment.
THE FEATHERSTON CASES.
Some time ago — as far back as February — allegations were made that conscientious objectors had been somewhat similarly treated at Featherston. Religious objectors were alleged to have been forcibly stripped, knocked about and abused with a wealth of profanity. In these cases the men were given military uniforms, their private clothes were taken away, and they were left with only their underpants and shirts. They refused to don the uniform; and all of them joined in singing hymns. One of these religious objectors, it is alleged, having been shut up in a cell of small dimensions, was given ten minutes in which to put on military clothes. In a statement to his father, he says: "I refused, and at the end of the ten minutes six men . . . instructed by the sergeant-major, lifted me off my feet, and attempted to put the denim trousers on by force. Seeing that the men had difficulty, the sergeant-major told them to frog-march me, head down. ... I asked him if he were enjoying himself, to which he replied that he would enjoy shooting me very much more. Witnesses have informed me that he further instructed his men, one to sit on my chest, and another on his head, and again, to “give the b— one under his b— jaw, that will settle him.” The trousers were badly torn in the attempt to get them on to me, and in spite of my protest that it was not my fault, the Camp Commandant subsequently fined me 4s l1d, 'to be deducted from my pay.’ ”
THE DEPORTED OBJECTORS.
I am further desired to once more draw your attention to the case of the fourteen conscientious objectors who were forcibly taken away in July of last year. The parents of most of them are quite unable to ascertain their whereabouts, and are receiving practically no correspondence from them. The treatment to which these objectors were subjected in the latter half of last year has already been made public. The members of the proposed deputation wish to bring under your notice that at least two of those objectors have been subjected to the punishment known as crucifixion (otherwise Field Punishment No. 1), scathingly denounced by Mr Robert Blatchford in the “Sunday Chronicle,” and by Mr J. K. Prothero in “Everyman.” Mr Blatchford is readily accepted as an authority by your Government, and most certainly cannot be charged with any anti-militarist bias. Mr Prothero (an ardent pro-war Britisher) says: “The punishment of ‘crucifixion’ bears the impress of that diabolism against which the Allied nations are fighting, and its perpetration against our soldiers is an indelible disgrace upon our national honour.” As you know, the military authorities in England and France refused to regard the fourteen conscientious objectors from here as other than soldiers; and it was as soldiers that the two referred to (Messrs Archibald Baxter and Harry Patton) were subjected to “crucifixion.” On March 5th; Archibald Baxter wrote to his parents (the letter being passed by the Censor): “I have never told you since I left New Zealand of the things I have passed through, for I knew it would hurt you. I only tell you now so that if anything happens to me, you will know I have suffered to the limit of my endurance, but will never in my sane senses surrender to the evil power that has fixed its roots like a cancer on the world. I have been treated as a soldier who disobeys. (Number 1 Field Punishment.) It is not possible for me to tell you in words what I have suffered, but you will be glad to know that I have met a great many men who have shown me the greatest kindness. I know that your prayers for me are not in vain. I will pray for you all to the last. It is all I can do for you now. If you hear that I have served in the army, or that I have taken my own life, do not believe that I did it in my sound mind, no matter what anyone says.”
ARCHIBALD BAXTER’S FATE.
On May 14th Mr Baxter’s parents received a brief communication from the Base Records Branch to the effect that a cablegram had been received from overseas stating that Archibald Baxter had been “admitted to hospital. United Kingdom, on May 5th, and his mental condition was causing anxiety”— a communication which conveys its own terrible message. The Baxter family are all deeply and genuinely religious. Three of the sons were deported last July; three others are now in New Zealand prisons. They are all practical farmers, and their aged parents are left to carry on the farm work — an impossible task.
Information concerning the fate of most of the other deported men has not been available. One mother (Mrs Ballantyne) was officially notified on May 31st that her son had been sentenced in November last to five years’ imprisonment, and that the sentence had been commuted to two years by General Godley; but she otherwise neither heard from nor of her son. It is said — and I think the statement is correct — that neither Canada nor Australia will tolerate the infliction of “crucifixion” on their soldiers, and the members of our deputation would suggest that the New Zealand Government make the strongest representations to the Imperial military authorities to the same effect. If Canada and Australia can have their own provost-marshals, there should be no reason why New Zealand should not have hers.
FULL INQUIRY WANTED.
I am asked to urge on behalf of the deputation: —
1. That an open and full inquiry he held concerning the treatment of conscientious objectors — both in New Zealand and in England and France.
2. That the 14 deported men be returned to New Zealand for the purposes of this inquiry, as well as a matter of correct policy.
3. That the men who are alleged to have suffered the persecution described have the right to be represented by counsel, and that no restriction be placed on them in the matter of calling witnesses from among the military prisoners and guards.
4. That the military officers implicated in the alleged illegal treatment of conscientious objectors he relieved of their duties pending the investigation of their conduct, and if found guilty discharged from the service and called upon to answer charges in the civil courts.
5. That Wanganui prison be transferred from military to civil control. The members of the deputation strongly urge that you should consent to the open and complete inquiry they ask for, not alone in the interest of conscientious objectors, but in the interests of New Zealand as a whole. They are quite satisfied that you, as Minister for Defence, do not desire that the things should he done which are alleged to have occurred; and they are convinced that only by the public being taken wholly into the confidence of the Government, and by every situation, however unpleasant, being faced in the light of day, can the public good be conserved. -NZ Times, 27/6/1918.
BAXTER'S BREAKDOWN
Neutral Condition Causing Anxiety
Dear "Truth," — I sincerely hope that you will be able to print this letter and enclosed communications. The subject is that of Archibald Baxter, listed by the authorities as a religious objector. Sent away with reinforcements in July last, along with 13 others; and treated continually since then simply as a disobedient soldier, because our policy with regard to conscientious objectors does not recognise the claims of conscience except in the case of Quakers, Christadelphians and Seventh Day Adventists. In consequence, Archibald Baxter has been punished so often for refusing to do what his conscience forbade him to do, that be has broken down in brain as well as body. His last letter to his parents, and the subsequent communication from Base Records office here, copies of which I enclose, will put the whole thine before your readers far better than any further words of mine. — Yours, etc.,
B. E. BAUGHAN. Sumner, Christchurch.
Copy of Archibald Baxter's letter: Somewhere in France, March 5, 1918.
My Dear Father and Mother, — I have just time to send you this brief note. I am being sent up to the lines to-morrow. I have not heard where Jack and Sandy (his brothers) are. As far as military service goes, I am in the same mind as ever. It is impossible for me to serve in the Army. I would a thousand times rather be put to death, and I am sure you all believe that the stand I take is right. I have never told you since I left N.Z. of the things I have passed through, for I knew now it would hurt you. I only tell you now so that if anything happens to me you will know. I have suffered to the limit of my endurance, but I will never in my sane senses surrender to the evil power that has fixed its roots like a cancer on the world. I have been treated as a soldier who disobeys (Number 1 Field Punishment). That is hard enough at this time of the year, but what made it worse for me was, that I was bound to refuse to do military work even as a prisoner. It is not possible for me to tell in words what I have suffered, but you will be glad to know that I have met a great many men who have shown me the greatest kindness. I know that your prayers for me are not in vain. I will pray for you all to the last. It is all I can do for you now. If you hear that I have served In the Army, or that I have taken my own life, do not believe that I did it in my sound mind, no matter what anyone says. I never will. We are all standing together, although we are not far apart. I have not much more time, but I will write again as soon as I can. — Your loving son, ARCHIE BAXTER.
(Passed by Censor.)
Copy. Base Records Branch N.Z. Military Forces. Wellington, May 14. 18.
Mr. John Baxter, Brighton, Dunedin.
Dear Sir, — Re 47814 Pte. Archibald McL. Baxter, I have to advise that a cablegram has been received from overseas, stating that the above-named soldier was admitted to Hospital United Kingdom on May 5, and his mental condition was causing anxiety. I sincerely trust that with care, rest and attention, Private Baxter will soon be restored to his normal health.
— Yours faithfully, B. A. MORRIS. Chief Clerk.
Inquiries of the Defence Department show that Archibald McCall Learmont Baxter is one of the 14 men embarked last July. He is not "listed by the authorities as a religious objector." He appealed on religious grounds, but, though notified of the hearing, did not (unfortunately, the story ends here - GBC) -NZ Truth, 26/10/1918.
One person who read Archibald's published letter was a well-off young lady who performed volunteer work with the Red Cross. "It moved me, right out of my shell into the open; and in the open I have remained, looking into things, questioning them." She became a pacifist also and, in February 1921, Millicent Amiel MacMillan Brown married Archibald Baxter.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
ARCHIBALD BAXTER'S CASE.
STATEMENT FROM DEFENCE DEPARTMENT.
The Minister of Defence (Sir James Allen) forwards us for publication the following in reference to the above: — The case of Archibald McColl Learmond Baxter, has been brought lately into prominence by persons who are interested in the objectors to military service. Circular letters have been widely distributed alleging that this man had been driven by repeated punishment as a disobedient soldier into a state of mental derangement. In support of these statements copies of two letters were attached to the circular: one, dated in March, 1918, from the man himself to his parents, containing statements that it was impossible for him to serve in the army; that he had suffered to the limit of his endurance but that he would never in his sane senses surrender to the evil power that had fixed its roots like a cancer upon the world; that he had suffered field punishment for his disobedience. The other letter was dated 14th May, 1918, and was from Base Records to his father, informing him that his son "had been admitted into hospital and that his mental condition was causing anxiety."
The facts are as follows: Baxter was sent to a hospital in England from France, the Medical Officers in the field having doubts as to his sanity. His admission to hospital in England was cabled in ordinary course to Base Records in New Zealand, and his father was accordingly informed by Base Records letter of the 14th May. Further cabled reports were obtained from England which showed that his illness was not, as suggested, due to field punishment, and that his case was not serious. Subsequently, however, advice was received that he was to be returned to New Zealand as medically unfit, and he was subsequently embarked suffering from "melancholia," which its a form of mental derangement. He arrived in New Zealand with returning draft No. 175 on the 21st September. The Hospital Ship's report says: "Baxter was received on board as a case of melancholia. He is apparently of a surly, morose disposition, and does not say much. He showed no symptoms of insanity while on board, and at all times was perfectly rational. His physical health was good, and he has not suffered from any illness." The medical examiners after arrival found that he was not insane, and that he did not require to be sent to a hospital, mental or otherwise. He required out-patient treatment only, and so can proceed to his home on disembarkation.
It appears from his own letters that he has persistently disobeyed orders, and if he has suffered any disability involving mental derangement, whether the degree of the derangement be great or small, the disability is the natural outcome of his consistently setting up his will in opposition to the will of the community.
Baxter is one of the fourteen men embarked last year whom people persist in designating "conscientious objectors," whereas in fact nine (including four deserters) did not advance religious or conscientious objections at all, and the remaining five advanced religious objections with which the Military Service Boards were not satisfied. The man whose case is now raised (Baxter) appealed on religious grounds but did not take the trouble to attend and place his case before the Board.
It has been alleged that the fourteen objectors have not been allowed to write letters home, but this is untrue, and they have exactly the same facilities for correspondence as other soldiers.
While reports were being obtained from England as to Baxter's case opportunity was taken to obtain reports as to the remainder of the fourteen men, from which it was learned that none were in prison or detention, and that all were doing duty satisfactorily.
The fourteen were (in July) located as follows: — Serving with Auckland Regiment — W. Little, A. Baxter, D. R. Gray, T. P. Harland, M. Briggs; Serving with Entrenching Grqup — J. Baxter, A. E. Sanderson; Employed in stationary hospital — L. J. Kirwan; In hospital in England — Arch. Baxter; Serving with Wellington Regiment — F. Adin, D. Maguire; At Sling — G. C. Ballantyne; Serving with Medical Corps — L. E. Penwright, H. Patton. This information has been communicated to the relatives or next-of-kin concerned.
Since the above information was received advice has arrived that W. Little has "died of wounds." -Grey River Argus, 11/11/1918.
Archibald Baxter arrived back in New Zealand on September 21, 1918, and was discharged on December 5. His physical condition was reported as "good" and he was not considered to be insane, merely "of a surly, morose disposition." Considering his extensive experiences at the hands of the military machine, this is not at all surprising. On reaching Wellington, he had the dubious honour of a visit from the Minister of Defence himself. He was questioned about aspects of his treatment as described in his letter home — the publication of which he was unaware.
Archibald Baxter arrived back in New Zealand on September 21, 1918, and was discharged on December 5. His physical condition was reported as "good" and he was not considered to be insane, merely "of a surly, morose disposition." Considering his extensive experiences at the hands of the military machine, this is not at all surprising. On reaching Wellington, he had the dubious honour of a visit from the Minister of Defence himself. He was questioned about aspects of his treatment as described in his letter home — the publication of which he was unaware.
On arrival at his home port of Dunedin he was given a card with details of a hospital appointment — and threatened with consequences if he did not attend. He attended.
He was unaware at the time that he was attending a Medical Board, assembled to enquire into his condition prior to formal discharge from the army. He objected, at this meeting, to his treatment and stated that he would not answer further questions unless he was treated with respect — that respect, he was given.
He was also required to report to the police — just a formality, he was told; every soldier was required to do so. This, he discovered, was not the case. On objecting to being made to report to the police, he was told that it would not be necessary. Information on him could be obtained by other means.
"And so," says Archibald McColl Learmont Baxter, farmer, in the final sentence of 'We Will Not Cease', "my experiences with the army ended."
THE BRINK OF HELL AND THE BORDERLAND OF DEATH.
The most sensational section of "Armageddon or Calvary" — the C.O. book which Mr H. K. Holland, M.P., is now engaged upon — will be the three chapters in which Messrs Mark Briggs, Archibald Baxter, and Garth Ballantyne tell in their own way the story of their terrible experiences in England and France, as well as at sea on the way to England. "These men," the author says, "went to the brink of Hell and the borderland of Death" for the sake of their principles. Naked on the transport for days; carried ashore at Plymouth even as they were carried aboard at Wellington; held in solitary confinement for weeks at Sling, handcuffed with their hands behind them, and stripping the uniform off on every occasion that their hands were free; carried across to France, some of them in irons; threatened with death and alternately coaxed, kicked, beaten, and bullied; dragged a mile over a "duckwalk'' until the clothes were torn away and the flesh a raw mass; stood by an ammunition dump which the Germans had been vigorously shelling; sentenced to five years' imprisonment, and sent to experience, for seven almost endurable months, the horrors of the military prison at Dunkirk, and incidentally to see the treatment accorded not only the C.O. but the ordinary soldier in that modern hell; and eventually returned to New Zealand with unbroken will and pride of conscience triumphant; such was the experience of one or other of these men who endured — who had reason, out, of the night that covered them, "black as the pit from pole to pole," to thank all the god's that be for their own unconquerable souls.
The Worker Printery have "Armageddon or Calvary" for delivery by September 30 - Advt. -Manawatu Standard, 29/8/1919.
Archibald's post-war life was not the easiest to begin with. Conscientious objection was a polarising subject. He married Millicent and they farmed at Kuri Bush, south of Brighton, Otago. Terence and James Keir Baxter were born in 1922 and 1926. Both sons became pacifists, James became a poet. Terence went into prison in 1941 and James, bullied at Otago Boys' High School for his family's stand, was facing a similar situation when the Second World War ended.
The death of Millicent's father, Professor John MacMillan Brown, in 1935 brought an inheritance to the Baxters, allowing them to travel and be more active in the peace movement.
Archibald's account of his "experiences with the army" was written at Salisbury, England, and published in 1939. By an ironic accident of history, most copies of the first edition were destroyed in their dockside warehouse during the London Blitz of 1940. The book was little-known in New Zealand until it was reprinted in 1968. Archibald Baxter's foreword, written with the perspective of the looming possibility of global nuclear destruction — and with an increasing awareness of the conditions in Vietnam, stated "The only apparent justification that war ever had was that by destroying some lives it might clumsily preserve others. But now even that apparent justification is being stripped away. We make war chiefly on civilians and respect for human life seems to have become a thing of the past."
 |
'Archibald Baxter's 'We will not cease' cover', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/we-will-not-cease, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 23-Jun-2015 |
| Drawing of Archibald Baxter by Theo Schoon, 1948. Used as a frontispiece in the reprint of "We Will Not Cease." Hocken Library photo. |
It must have been a strangely familiar feeling for Archibald to attend the trial of his nephew, John Archibald, in 1941, appealing against his drafting for the second "great" war.
WILL NOT FIGHT
NOT EVEN IN COUNTRY’S DEFENCE
PACIFIST’S WAR OBJECTIONS
APPEAL AGAINST SERVICE
Declaring war to be futile, and stating he had no intention of serving in the armed forces or of assisting in the defence of his country, John Archibald Baxter, a carpenter, living at Brighton, appealed against military service overseas when the Armed Forces (Overseas) Appeal Board continued its sitting this morning. The board comprised Messrs J. H. Bartholomew, S.M. (chairman), B. S. Connor, and J. Price. Mr A. N. Haggitt appeared as Crown representative.
Baxter also appealed on the grounds of public interest and undue hardship.
In a statement to the board appellant said that as a member of the Peace Pledge Union he believed war and the preparations for war to be futile and contrary to the teachings of Christ and his own conscience. He therefore refused to support or sanction war.
“The last war was a war to end war,” he stated. “This in itself should he proof enough of the futility of war. War will never end war. I therefore refuse to become part of the war machine. I refuse also to compromise and perform work of national importance other than continuing my present occupation as a carpenter. I have held these convictions since the last war. My uncles — the Baxters — were conscientious objectors during the last war. They stood by their humane principles and suffered for them. To-day their ideals are unchanged."
IMPORTANCE OF CARPENTRY WORK.
On the grounds of public interest appellant claimed that as a carpenter he would be of use at home; carpentry was a necessary work in his opinion. He was in partnership and was responsible for a good deal of immediate work which had been contracted for. — He withdrew the appeal of undue hardship.
Mr Haggitt asked, as appellant had a knowledge of carpentry would he not be of use in construction work in the Army.
Appellant: I do not believe in the army.
“But why should you be exempted any more than any other carpenter?” said Mr Haggitt.
“It was a matter for them to apply for exemption,” replied appellant.
“But why should your work be classified as most important?”
Appellant said he had six months plumbing and carpentering ahead of him at both Stewart Island and Brighton. He considered it should be done.
PEACE PLEDGE UNION.
Mr Haggitt: What is the Peace Pledge Union?”
Appellant: It was founded after the last war, and is supported by people who are in search of peace in the world.
Continuing, he said he understood his uncle was one of the founders. Its activities covered the whole of the Dominion. He did not know if it had any relationship with a similar body in England. He could not recall the name of the original founder. He joined as soon as a branch was formed in his district, about two years ago, he thought. Pressed on this point appellant said he thought he joined in September, 1939. He could not say whether before or after the outbreak of war. He did not know which month or on which day war was declared.
Mr Haggitt: Surely you have some idea when the war started?
Appellant: I think it was August, 1939.
Mr Haggitt: Then you must have joined the union after war was declared?
Appellant: By that date, it must have been. When he joined the union, he said, he renounced all war. He was not previously a member of any church or any organisation devoted to the cause of peace. He had never performed any military service. On the grounds of undue hardship he had appealed against and been exempted from Territorial service when called up. He had not appealed as a conscientious objector.
Mr Haggitt: Can you provide any evidence to prove you were opposed to war prior to joining the Peace Pledge Union?
Appellant: It was as natural for me to hold those views as it was to walk and eat.
GROWTH OF THE MOVEMENT.
Archibald Baxter, uncle of appellant, said he believed appellant had always held his views. His parents held similar views, and had since the last war. Witness had founded the No More War Movement in New Zealand from 12 to 15 years before. About September, 1939, it had been absorbed by the Peace Pledge Union. He could not say who founded the union; his memory was not good. Witness had joined the Peace Pledge Union while in England at the time of the Munich crisis. He thought that the union had been founded there in 1930. Appellant could not have joined the union much sooner than he did as it was not started here much before September 1939. Witness believed all men were brothers. He was a conscientious objector in the last war.
WOULD NOT FIGHT
Uncalled, appellant said be would not do anything to defend New Zealand. He did not believe in taking life. He would not join the forces as a noncombatant or take part in any national work.
“Yet you expect to enjoy the privileges of citizenship?” Mr Haggitt asked.
“I have that pressed upon me!” appellant replied.
"I see. And we are to understand that you would do nothing in the event of invasion?” Mr Haggitt continued.
Appellant replied he would do nothing in any organised form. He would not destroy human life; he would not assist in the defence of any country.
When Mr Haggitt asked if appellant would do anything if his mother were attacked he replied, “That is not war.”
“Then if this country were invaded what would you do?” Mr Haggitt asked.
Appellant said he would not kill. He would do what he could to protect his mother and family so long as he could do so without resorting to the use of arms or weapons. “There is,” he said. “a Power stronger than any invading army.”
Mr Haggitt: You would not sit down and fold your arms and wait for things to happen.
Appellant: Probably not.
QUESTION OF DATE OF ENTRY.
Sidney Turner, secretary of the Peace Pledge Union, said the branch had been formed in May, 1939. Appellant had joined in September, 1939. No one joining was asked their views. They signed a card and paid a small membership fee. He did not think anyone would attend meetings unless they were sincere in supporting the union. He hardly expected that anyone would forget the name of the founder. In reply to further questioning witness said he could not be sure of the data when appellant joined. He would find out from the records. The hearing was then adjourned until the afternoon to enable this information to be provided.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
An appeal by Alex. Brownlie, warehouseman, on the grounds of conscientious objection was dismissed, as there was no appearance of appellant.
HARD LABOUR FOR OBJECTORS
BRITISH MEASURES THE LAST WAR
[Per United Press Association.] NEW PLYMOUTH. February 13. Among the appellants from military service who appeared before the Armed Services Appeal Board at New Plymouth to-day was a 21-year-old farm hand, who said that since he was seven years old he had belonged to the Society of Friends, and he objected to any service under military control.
The appeal was allowed, the board recommending that alternative service be granted.
The appellant’s father produced evidence of membership of the society. Twenty-five years ago he and his five brothers had been conscientious objectors, said witness. During the past 20 years he had been an active worker for peace.
“What were the decisions in the appeals in England?” asked the Crown representative.
Witness: I was given two years’ hard labour.
Witness said objectors were imprisoned for a few mouths and then taken back to camp, being returned to prison when they again objected. Altogether he served three years, pointing out that at that time two years was the longest term to which the most hardened criminal could be sentenced. -Evening Star, 14/2/1941.
A year later, John Archibald is one of four men given a month with hard labour for "failure to report." They were then transferred to the "defaulters' camp" at Trentham "for the duration."
A year later, John Archibald is one of four men given a month with hard labour for "failure to report." They were then transferred to the "defaulters' camp" at Trentham "for the duration."
| Archibald and Millicent Baxter, with grand-daughter Hilary (daughter of James K) in the background, early 1950s. Hocken Library Photo. |
After the Second World War, Archibald and Millicent continued their support of the peace movement, then a more important cause than ever. Archibald died in 1970 and Millicent in 1984. They are buried together at the cemetery in Green Island, Dunedin.
 |
| Green Island Cemetery. DCC photo. |
No comments:
Post a Comment