THE KNYVETT CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 41, 17 February 1910, Page 7

THE KNYVETT CASE.

—r — DEPUTATION* TO MINISTERS. XHE POSITION EXPLAINED. EONS. G. FOWLDS AND DR. FTNDLAY IX REPLY. i deputation, coniskLing of Messrs. C jr. pooie F. W. Laitg, F. Mander, A. E. Glover, and J. H. G)reens!ade, M-P.'a, C. J Parr. G. Peacocke, {J. S. Dickson, J. H. jjcKenzie, G. J. Garland, F. E. N. Gaudin, J Murdoch, and B. iA-rmstrong, waited on "the Hon. G. Fowlds and the Hon. Dr. Rndlaj at the M-inisterial Rooms, Cos- I •oni* BuiMuu;. yesterday afternoon, to ' iav before the Ministers the subject mat- i M r of tie resolutions passed at the 'mass j indignation meeting in His .Majesty's j jfceatre on Monday meat. 1 Mr C. H. Poole briefly introduced the J deputation. The rim speaker was Mr. C. J. Parr, who presented the resolutions in ques- j noc The meeting held on Monday ] he said, contained men of all ; ihiies oi political feeling—strong Go- i veTjnenc supporters, Oppositionists, and ' Soeialist-s. There was an aim-OS: unanimous feeling in Auckland city and pro- j rinee thj- 1 Captain Knyveit had not • received iair treatment. an-j the facts j raii**d for more truin his rejaitaiemen:. There was neeri for a nio-t searching inquiry into the whole admuiis-tri-ion "of tie Defence Department, lie; did not propose to go into details, as fee pres-uined both Ministers were conver- . sant with the facts of the case. Even Essnming that there had been a breacn of the regulations, the punishment meted oat was" oat of ail proportion to the ] offenoe. Hγ. G. Peacocke said that he believed ; he was justified in saying that a full ' inquiry was needed to ease the public ] mind, for there was a feeling of want of confidence in the general efficiency' and good management of the Defence : Department, If those entertaining these | opinions were suffering delusions, the I sooner they knew it the better. The people had" Co be assured that there wa* no rottenness in the Defence Department. Referring to the punishment meted oul to Captain Knyvett, Mr. Peacocke said it so severe as to almost amount to brutality. Mr. F. Mander said he was thoroughly convinced of the need of an inquiry, aJid felt absolutely convinced that a great injustice had been done to Captain Knyvett. In the letter written by Captain Knyvett to the Chief of Staff there was perhaps one phrase that would have been better omitted. Otherwise he considered j it ;i very mild communication. '■ Mr. A. E. Glover said he hoped that | much good would result from the decision of Cabinet when the true state of affairs was made known. The matter ! would not stop at its present stage, j The people were indignant, and would only bo satisfied with a Royal Commission. Mr. F. W. Lang, in supporting the other speakers, said lie was afraid nothing would do more to dampen the ardour of the people in connection with the working of the new Defence Act than the unfortunate treatment of Captain j Knyvett. It was necessary, in his opin- | ion, that the Department should court the very fullest inquiry, and see whether the charges made could be sustained. A BROTHER OFFICER'S COMPLAINT. Captain F. E. X. Gaudin said he presumed he was placing himself in possibly a peculiar position, since he was a commissioned officer on the unattached list, and it might be considered that he was committing a breach of the regulations j in attending that deputation. He j wanted to explain, however, in case the Minister did not know, that when Colonel Wolfe forwarded Captain Knyvett's letter to headquarters, it was addressed to Colonel Tuson. A second communication was forwarded at the same time to Colonel Tuson, containing a copy of the ! original letter, and a request that if Colonel Tu?on thought there was anything improper in the wording of the letter, the original should not be opened, but returned. Colonel Tuson sent the letter on to Colonel Robin, and ColoDel Tuson a few days after, issued orders for Captain Knyvett's arrest. He (Mr. Gaudin) thought Cabinet should be informed of this fact, and he trusted that it would assist in justice being done to his brother officer. Captin Knyvett. Mr. (.'. H. Poole remarked that he would like to assure Ministers that no matter what was said in the South about the frenzy of the Aucklanders, the position was nevertheless a most acute one. A telegram had been sent Sir Joseph by Auckland members asking for an inquiry into the Defence Department's administration. The reply was received that no inquiry was wanted. Was it imagined that Auckland members had signed their namee to that telegram for nothing I HON. G. FOWLDS IN REPLY. The Hon. G. Fowlds was the first Minister to reply. He said that two distinct subjects had been dealt with by ' members of the deputation. He was afraid that those two subjects had not j been kept sufficiently apart in the public mind. The first dealt with the Knyvett j case, and the second with the efficiency : pi the Defence Department. They were; separate and distinct subjects. The first i had evidently not been settled to the! , satisfaction of many of the people in Auckland. Mr. Greenslade: It is most unjust. Continuing, Sir. Fo\vlds; said he had lot-Lad time to master all the details.!: Captain Knyvetfs letter, however, he ' tad read. He had to admit that he was I ■ surprised that anyone who read the letter ' could contend that there was no evidence | of insubordination. If letters of the kind j : ■"■we allowed to be sent with impunity ' to the chief of Staff, discipline would j never be sustained. He would admit that j ' the severity of the sentence imposed was j open to question. The punishment was \ recommended by the Adjutant-General, who was an Imperial officer. Mr. Gaudin : It was he to whom ths letter was originally forwarded. Hon. Mr Fowlds: i"cannot say anything ; ■tout that. Of the details of the matter •I am not fully conversant. >fr. .Parr:' But should you not have known? You sat in Cabinet on this ! matter. Hon. Mr. Fowlds: Yes, and for my lotions I am willing- to answer to mem•ers in the House and to electors in my onstitueney. It is an absolute impossi- ! Uity for every Minister to fully master ie details of every other Ministers Deirtment. Some of the statements that ive been made I do not believe to be , irrect. It is not possible to preserve scipline by holding indication lneetgs. Mr. Parr: Nor by imposing unjust sen- ' ices. The Minister for Education further rered to the action of Colonel Tuson, i 3 had. wcannufiiided. the punishment, i

j and said Cabinet had acted on his rej commendation. The request that an inquiry into the administration of the Defence Department should be held he wouia place before the Minister for Defence, and it would no doubt later receive the consideration of Cabinet. HOX. DB. FIXDLAY ON THE LEGAL ASPECT. The Hon. Dr. Findlay said that no one present would expect* either himself or his colleague to give any pronouncement on the present stage of the Knyvett case. What menu lay in the case had been impressed upon them in the last few days, lhey had had an impressive mass meeting, and an impressive Press, and they would be dull indeed if they did not perceive that there was dissatisfaction. He desired to make a very short statement of the ease a≤ it stood at, present. What was the law in the matter? There was a jrreat deal of misapprehension as regarded martial law. In New Zealand there was no such thing as martial law, and it only applied to war-time and when forces were concentrated. The Defence Act excluded the application of martial law, and they had To therefore deal with the matter only as it came within the tour comers of the Art. He knew that those present did not want the question to turn on narrow questions of law, nor did he want to indulge in technicalities. The Court of Inquiry sai under sections 54 and 107 of the Act. Insubordination and bringing charges against his superior officer were the indictments Mr Knyvett had to answer. Those who had re-id the evidence knew what an able defence the officer concerned had made, llr Knwett knew what the charges were that he had to meet. Mr Gaudin: Were those charges not dropped? Hon. Dr. Findlay: I think that you would do better to let mc proceed. Continuing, the Minister said he would ask those present to believe that Colonel Tuson was an honourable English soldier. Colouel Tuson may have erred, but he (Dr. Findlay) asked them to believe that he was an honourable man. and that hia recommendation had been honestly made. Mr Parr: We do not deny that. Gurrtmuing, the Hon. Dr. Findlay said that when a matter was referred for judgment to a man of life-long experience, it was only natural that his decision should carry some influence. Colonel Tuson reported to Cabinet that the letter was so insubordinate as to warrant dismissal. Ca.binet upheld that recommendation, and he was one who shared the responsibility of that decision. Mr Glover: Was Colonel Tuson not influenced by his superior officer? Hon. Dr. Findlay: Ido not believe anything of the sort, and 1 ask you to do him the justice of admitting the honesty jof his intention. Referring to the re- ! quest of the deputation which went to Wellington to ask for a new trial, the Hon. Dr. Findlay said that Colonel Tuson had asked him whether the proceedings ! were in any way invalid, and whether : they could commence d-e novo. The ; Crown law officers were also asked for a report on the question, and the reply was that there had been nothing invalid about the proceedings. What ground, therefore, was there for a new trial? Could the Government do anything else? The proceedings and the dismissal, svere valid in law, and thp-re' was nothing else that 1 could be done under the Act. Mr Parr: And do you say that the ! Government can go no further? Hon. Dr. Findlay: Ido nor,. lam making the legal position clear—-that the Prime Minister acted upon responsible advice, tendered by his legal officers. I accept that responsibility. It has been said that the Government's action iv the matter was brutal llr Peacocke: I said the sentence was brutal. Hon. Dr. Findlay: Similar remarks have been made, and one of the resolutions handed mc speaks of the sentence as grossly unjust. That implies that we acted in v malignant way. Continuing, the Minister said it would have been intinitelv more easy for the Government to have said that it would give ano-ther trial or inquiry. But they had taken the less pleasant course, which was what they believed the just course. No one was more sorry than he that Mr Knyvett had so far forgotten the highest traditions of discipline- The legal aspect of the case ho had pointed out to them. Their further representations he would be pleased to bring before the Minister of Defence,