Evening Republican, Volume 21, Number 36, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 February 1917 — TARDY SOLDIERS ARE HARD TO HANDLE [ARTICLE]

TARDY SOLDIERS ARE HARD TO HANDLE

“Conscientious Objectors’ 1 Find Difficult Time in Their Army Life. CRUELTY AMONG CHARGES Four Non-Commlssloned Officers Are Tried .Before Courtmartial and New Light Is Thrown on ManMr of Drilling.— London. —Much trouble is being experienced by the British military authorities In the handling of that particular variety of British recruits who call themselves “conscientious objectors.” The term itself Vvas originated by Mr. Asquith at the time when as prime minister he introduced into the house of commons the famous conscription bill. It will be recalled thatln announcing the fact that ail British subjects' between the ages of eighteen and forty-one would be compelled to join the colors Mr. Asquith included among those who would be exempted men who could prove that they had a “conscientious objection” to carrying arms or to taking life. In the course of the last year a large number of those “conscientious objectors” have claimed exemption, and while very few have been successful in winning dispensation from military service the majority have been incorporated in special regiments which are used abroad or In England for special labor, which, although not involving the carrying or the use of arms. Is of national importance in connection with Use The officers who have been placed in charge of these special units have been experiencing a considerable amount of trouble In the handling of these men. and a great number of the insubordinates have been courtmartialed and sentenced to prison terms. The latest case to come before the public is that of four non-commissfon-ed officers, whq were brought before a courtmartial en charges of illtreating private soldiers of the battalion. The case is particularly interesting inasmuch as it throws a new light on the manner in which the drills for new recruits take .place. . . :

111 Treatment Charged. The cases arose out of allegations of 111 treatment made by Charles Dukes and George Beardsworth, who are “conscientious objectors,” at the time of their trial for disobedience of tailltary orders._J|, .war office inquiry into the case of these then followed, with the result that the non-commissioned officers Implicated were ordered to be tried by courtmartial. The accused were Corporal Thomas Cheers, Lance Corporal J. W. A. Williams, Lance Corporal J. W. Williams and acting Sergeant Fred Marshall. The first to be tried was Marshall, and he was charged with Illtreating a soldier in Birkenhead Park on August 22 last by forcibly compelling Private Charles Dukes to execute certain gymnastic exercises and that in doing so he used unnecessary violence, thereby causing pain and suffering to Private Dukes. —Cnptnln Rimmer said that in spite of the refusal of witnesses who had given evidence at the Inquiry to attend that court Brigadier General Edwardes had directed that the court must be held, although it was as a result of the statements of these witcojnmissioned Tffleers were preferred. On being brought before the commanding officer in order that he might take a summary of their evidence Dukes and Beardsworth refused to give evidence. They had been summoned to that courtmartial and had emphatically refused to attend.

Witnesses Tell Story. Eight civilian witnesses had been subpenaed and from two of these letters had been received stating that they declined to attend. Under these circumstances he would proceed with what evidence he had and would call Corporal Baker, who was the gymnastic instructor of the regiment and who would identify the prisoner Marshall as the man who handled Dukes and Beardsworth on the occasions named and who must have illtreated them if such ill treatment did occur. Corporal Robert Baker gave evidence to the effect that he was in Birkenhead Park on August 22 In charge of the gymnastic party. Private Charles Dukes was brought to him for training by the accused and Corporal J. W. Williams and he was put through the gymnastic exercises, assisted by those two. Samuel Lindop of Arthur street. Birkenhead, spoke of being in the park watching the gymnastic exercises. He saw four soldiers told off to shove another one about, but he could not Identify the man who was being shoved about. The man was rushed .up to the vaulting pole and then rushed to the water jump, where he was partly thrown in. The soliliers were knocking him about, but he could not identify any of them. Arthur C. Berry of Frederick street, Latchford, Warrington, trade union branch secretary of the National Union of General Workers, said he saw Dukes on August 24 and he was In a very distressed condition. Indeed, It was- practically impossible for him to express-hnnselL- Three days later he saw the Injuries on the lower part of <he Legs and ankles as well as eras bruises ori the arms. The Injures suggested that he had been thrown about roughly. This closed the evl-

I ' denes on the first charge. The second charge, of illtreatlng George Beards- 1 worth, was then proceeded with. Wife Tells Her Story. Lilian Beardsworth said she was in Birkenhead Park on August 31. She was standing near the water fountain and saw her husband being taken over the obstacles. He refused to go over the vaulting horses, so they threw him over. At the water Jump he refused, arid they threw him partly into ter. This was repeated at the inclined plane. When an officer said L “Stand clear!" and the man fell. After several attempts they dragged him CO the top end. doubled him up and he fell head over heels. They then threw him over the esealading board, which was about seven feet high, like a sack, and he was caught on the other side. For the defense Bussell Roberts called Corporal Williams, who said that on August 21, when Duke was alleged to have been in the park, he was scrubbing floors. Counsel contended that there was no evidence on the first charge. The accused, giving evidence on the second count, described what took place with regard to Beardsworth. He refused to do the drills or go over the obstacles, and therefore witness acting under orders assisted him over. In doing sa no more violence than necessary was used than in dealing with a man who was resisting. Beardsworth was not pushed into the water nor was he struck or kicked. A foreman shipwright gave evidence that he saw Beardsworth being com-

pulsorlly drilled. 'Considering that the man was resisting all the time be was not forcibly.handled. Police Sergeant Hactarton stated that he saw the proceedings in the park on the date named in the charge. He said Beardsworth was not llltreated. He was not in a state of exhaustion and was not bleeding from a wound in the face. Russell Roberts said that Beardsworth had been a champion of the inalienable right of the British soldier to be courtmartialed and have his case heard, but he had been the first to deny that right to his clients. But for the witnesses who had been subpenaed these charges would have broken down because of their own" weight, anil it would have been possible that the men would have been under a cloud for many months. Captain Rimmer objected to the prejudice which had been introduced by Mr. Roberts. It was not the duty of a non-commissioned officer to use unnecessary force in carrying out his duty. Tlte prLsoner Marshall.was remanded for the court to consider its decision. J. W. Williams was charged with illtreatlng Dukes by forcibly cutting his hair and in doing so using unnecessary force, thereby causing pain and suffering to Dukes. Cheers was charged with throwing a kitbag at the man. Both pleaded net guilty, and owing to the refusal of the witnesses of the fact to give evidence the prosecutor intimated that he was not in a position to proceed with the charge, and the prisoners were found not guilty and discharged.