TROUBLE IN NAVY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 40, 17 February 1937, Page 18

TROUBLE IN NAVY.

MEN DISCONTENTED.

UNDER NEW DISCIPLINE. IS ADMIRAL TO BLAME ? (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY. February 12. A writer in "SmithV Weekly" has aliened that i-tir navy i< seething with unrest and dissatisfaction, that the principal cause the pin-pricking to which the rm-n are subjected by inju.li<'ii>iiis, attempts tf> enforce regulations roir.irdless of the comfort or the feelings f>l the eailor-t. and that Rear-Admiral Lane-Pooie is the source and origin of all the trouble. Becoming more specific, the writer emphasised "the rear-admiral's persistent interference with the domestic •iffairs of the i«hip—essentially a matter for the individual commanders," and instanced, by way of illustration, the order which forbade the men to follow the traditional custom of wearing overa.lls when "j p/uting ship." Overalk have been worn l>: i;«*e they are more comfortable and. for such a purpose, much tidier end more comfortable than ordinary uniform, and in any ease this ie a matter which the ship commander ie accustomed to decide for himself. But the admiral has asserted his authority in thin matter and in many other cases, with the result that protests or appeals from the men no longer reach him through the officer commanding the various eectione.

"Centralised Despotism. , ' Briefly, the case against Rear-Admiral Lane-Poole is that he hae established a sort of centralized despotism in our navy, that he has largely ignored hie

sut ordinates, mostly local officers, and that he is endeavouring to enforce a system of regulations which, even if it is well adapted for the discipline of the British sailor, ie both humiliating and repugnant to the more independent and resourceful Australian. The writer of the article in "Smith's" scouts the idea that Australian sailors are not amenable to rational discipline, and he points to the fine record which the men of the Australia and Sydney secured in technical and sporting competitions against the pick of the British fleet during their recent visit to the Mediterranean, as proof that they have always recognised the need for discipline in the best sense of the word and have submitted to it. In conclusion, the writer "makes the fearless accusation that the administration of Rear-Admiral Lane-Poole ie "a menace to the smooth-working efficiency rf the R.A.N., and a continuance of his methods will make the navy fertile around for the seeds of even graver dissension." • . :..'

Of course, there is no public clue to :he identity of the writer, but internal evidence gathered from the article indi•atee that he is both competent, and veil-informed, and tfferefore considerable ■>üblic importance attache* to the con--lusion he has reached. "This is a mater of the utmost national iaaportance. Our existence may depend on the efficiency of our navy/ Orer many years, *nd at the cost of millions of the tax>syers* money, a high degree of effiiency has been achieved. This protecion end this efficiency are now* imperilled ■>y one man. He must go." :

Preview Acta ef Sabotage. .. .- It might well appear that mwnjflajn ■peak'ng would need a itiißC sftjj uf evidence to justify it But JJUh ta not the first time that -kwest and even of disaffection have reached the i«Mk ttr August "SmithV , ;fttbSahed omlnoos reports of this nftare, and the sabotage of breech blocks free some anti-aircraft irons on the- OiJttbenra during Jfce Jervis Bay m.noeunes i niaifc a great>ensation at the time. Tnek last month came rumours that boat falls on the Canberra had been cut, and the subsequent investi"«>on. which led to nothing, did little to dispel the air" of .suspicion and unrest that had gathered over- our Navy. But, perhans unfortunately, the Minister of Defen«-e. who is officially responsible for the condition of the Navy, has presistently declared thai there is nothing seriously wronr with the men or the ships or the officers; and that such acts of sabotage as have, been reported are the work of "* few disgruntled individuals," and must not be supposed to reflect the feelings of the men as a whole. '•-■ -' _ ■ ■■■'.-'

As to the admiral, Sir A. Pafthill's views are indicated clearly enoug**ia his latest pronouncement on the subject:— ; "In view of the unfair and unprecedented ;-\ ; attacks that have been made lately in a I section of the Press on Rear-Admiral ;' Lane-Poole, the Naval Board states most definitely that it has the fullest confi|v. denee in the administration of discipline v : j>' -by the Rear-Admiral in the squadron." r A Freak Outbreak. :■;' It is rather a curious fact that on the :' *ay on which the report of the Naval :; . Board was published, further evidence •s to the sabotage on the ships and die.;v eeotent among the ratings was made v " public in the newspapers. It seems that on January 17, just before the hut naval ; manoeuvres, when the Australia vent J into Cockatoo Dock, a cshfcrjaek chain, nooks and hatch-pins were dumped overboard. Then, at JerVis Bay, during the training period, followed the cutting of . boat-falls on the Canberra and Australia. The /feet finished itp training; on fifty, an 9 nil TiitiiaijP \3 some gun-rircuit wires on the 4in gone wereeeton the flag»iip Anrtralk, On the foTkkwing night soW telephone cables were cut" on the same ship; and on Saturday, February 6,.- eejf Jrwna" sprayed on one of the turret gun-houses, damaging the metal so seriously that it • will need to be scraped and repainted. > Clearta, these are not trivial matters | to be grossed over by the Minister of Defence, with the assurance that *all is well with the Navy." As to ft* treatment received by the men, and the effect that it has produced upon them, the "Daily Telegraph" (February 12) has published quotations from -a letter written by one of the Australia's ratings to his parents, and they throw rather a lurid light on the situation. He describes the acts of sabotage and the' k*.: efforts to enforce discipline which they Wβ. produced; and bis summary is: "Lord ||||S? o * rm lone the men will stick this liKNs** ,, " 0 *"" He gives a number of £f^ "^r ,^, for which the men I*l* en Pβ" s ****—for not wearing! H^sS/l^i* 6 eftrrert angle on boart •M* and for .wear** woollen pull-overs **efw-Vtio« en 4 er uniform pi I a«de a* «flhn*y »»* ifr^^^mT-d the various »Hk v et" •ali4«W^lia+J : % described to the eidifeTM-oihdii.- ' content an 4 re— wf went among the m*n. and the complaint* recorded are quite :;--' eumeiejrt to explain how such unrest