CAPTAIN FISHER’S CASE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11726, 29 October 1903, Page 3

CAPTAIN FISHER’S CASE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —So Cabinet has asked me for my resignation. And I have sent it to the officer commanding the district. As to why it should require "Cabinet” to request my resignation there can be only one explanation, viz., that there was no individual amongst all the defence authorities who lmd the moral courage to associate his name with such an infamous, unjust, and disgraceful decision.

That it is a political, and not- a military decision, there is no question or doubt. According to military law and precedent, my case should have been settled by either the Commandant or the Defence Minister. By casting the onus on to the Cabinet, Richard John .Seddon has shirked what is, perhaps, the most scandalous piece of business he has ever transacted. Briefly, the whole trouble is as follows:—In endeavouring !to obtain justice for those men who had the misfortune to be incapacitated from obtaining their livelihood through wounds or sickness, resulting from active service, I harmlessly stated, in a letter to the public Press, that these men “had made unavailing application to the Defence Department” for financial assistance. The officer commanding this district at once took offence at that statement, appearing. It is impossible for me to attribute to hint any motive for taking umbrage at apparently eo harmless a remark. I leave the public to judge whether the following question has any bearing on Colonel Porter’s attitude: 'Last session uio following question was asked in the iiouse by Mr George Fisher, the member for Wellington:—“Will the Acting-Premier inform the House what proportion" of the cost the people of N.Z. are paying towards the expenses of the Coronation Contingent being toured all over Great Britain to dance hakas at the concerts of Princess Te Itangi Pai, who happens to be Colonel Porter's daughter.” As I say, it is impossible for me to tell whether this has or has not lmd any bearing on the question. That my services in the volunteers were not required I know perfectly well. The name of Seddon had no terrors for me, nor has it now. But I am simply paying the penalty of a fearless and straightforward criticism. 1 have intimated to the Department that there are most glaring cases of incompetency in this district, and the charges made against Mr Seddon’s Department in the House were true in every particular. Mr Seddon could only refute those statements with misleading reports, and he did. As to the methods employed to oust mo from the force, they are such as should make any honest man blush for shame. A Court "of Enquiry was convened, consisting of three officers from Wellington, Timaru, and Dunedin. This gave it an aspect of impartiality. The Board met at nine o’clock at nigm, and concluded shortly after midnight, .me. Department convened three witnesses, viz., Colonels Porter and Day and Captain McGee, all for the prosecution. Until the Board met, I was not even informed of the charges. I was not allowed to call any witnesses, nor did the Board take any written .statements of mine. If ever such a tribunal existed before, it must have been in the days of the Inquisition. Indeed, I regret very much that tlnee officers of the volunteers could be guilty of taking part in such a fraud and a sham. The members of this glorious tribunal were LieutenantColonel Webb (president), .Major Lmdsay (of Timaru), and Major Graham (of Otago). And here is a significant point, too. I am informed that the Court' of Inquiry found a. verdict of “proven” in each of the three charges brought against me. The procedure of a Court' is governed by the Rules of Procedure,” issued by the War Office, and clause (h) says:—“A court of inquiry will give no opinion on the conduct of any officer or soldier.” This indicates the astounding methods adopted. Again, to quote the rules of procedure, clause (c) page 44: —“ Whenever any inquiry affects tho character of an officer, full opportunity must be afforded to the officer of making any statement he may wish to make, and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence affects his character, and producing any witness in defence of his character.”

Can Richard John Seddon drive a coach and four through that? Again, "the whole of the proceedings of a Court of Inquiry will be forwarded to the commanding officer who assembled the Court, and that commanding officer will, on his own responsibility, form such opinion as he thinks just.” Then where does “Cabinet” come in? It was surely General Babington’s duty to settle the matter, and not the Minister’s. But Mr Seddon would not let the General settle tho matter, because the General had already stated in his letter “ that although Captain Fisher’s letter may contain a slight reflection on the Department, yet it does not do so to any serious extent.” And further, he says, “I think Colonel Porter would have been well advised to have so informed Captain Fisher, aud to have let the matter drop.” This would not have suited Mr Seddon. Regardless of regulations, precedent, justice and fair play, Mr Seddon has said “Very well. If I leave it to Babington lie'll do the proper thing. If I do it myself, 1 shall get all the blame. I’ll get Cabinet to do it.” And he did. - And isn’t it worthy of tills Democratic Cabinet? This case lias a political under current running so strongly that it is not possible to fairly state the iniquitous >Sed-

(lonian methods w ithutu d>pl->y::ig a certain amount of feeliny.

And I do fee! it deeply. My enthusiasm as a volunteer is such that oil the Cabinet's ditchwater cannot quench it. 1 have done my Ivwt for the volunteers m endeavouring to lid them of those who mismanage their affairs, end in the tit>: pitched battle I am beaten. But. this battle will not be the last.

I venture to assort that the. Honourable (?) Defence Minister will not dare to lay the report of the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry on the table, of the House. At any rate,' I shall see that, he gets a chance. Not- to trespass any more on your valuable space, sir. which I shall, no doubt, encroach upon again. I can only say that it seems to me that Mr Seddon does not want men to devote time, energy, and monev to the service. He wishes to utilise it as a political machine, composed of men who have no opinions of their own, and who, if the "great man tells them the sky is pink, will continue to believe that it- is pink until he informs them that it is some other colour. My chief regret is, that I am not in a position to tell Richard John Seddon what I think of him and his department. 1 am, fortunately, not of the idolatrous class, and having, an opinion of my own, must pay the. penalty. In a way I am glad “Cabinet” has done it. It only cm drills my previous opinion of “Cabinet."—Yours, etc., F. M. U. FISHER, Captain. October 28th, 1903.