GRAVE INJUSTICE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 273, 12 August 1920, Page 6

GRAVE INJUSTICE

CAMP SCANDAL REVIVED

A PETITION TO PARLIAMENT

Ail affair that has previously attracted some attention was mentioned in the House of Representatives yesterday. Mr. 11. 11. Thompson, of Wellington, luid petitioned Parliament for compensation lor alleged wrongful imprisonment by the military authorities, and the 31 to Z Petitions Committee recommended the request for- tho favourable consideration of tho Government.

Mr. J. M. Dickson (Chalmers), chairman of the committee, stilted that Mr. Thompson' had entered camp in 191G as a volunteer. Ho was assigned to home service, and while in Featherston camp he accused Captan V. Hotop of having lieen drunk while on duly. Ho was courtmart'jilled on a charge of _ knowingly making a false statement against an officer, convicted, and sentenced to a term Df imprisonment. Later events had proved that Captain Hotop was an habitual drunkard. The committee, after careful examination of the facts, had decided that Thompson had been unjustly imprisoned, and that he was entitled to have his conviction expunged from the military records and to receive some compensation from the Government.

About twenty members of the House spoke in support of the recommendation of the committee. They stated that Thompson was a man of good character, that the officer's addiction to drink had been notorious, and that the trial had not been a fair one. Thompson had been prevented from obtaining witnesses and had practically been sacrificed to protect the reputation of tho officer. Mr. A. S. Malcolm (Clutha) said that Captain Hotop, apart from his unfortunate weakness, had been a very capable medical officer and a gentleman. The House was entitled to look 'behind Mm for the real offenders. Who had authorised the court-martial proceedings and had an innocent man sent to gaol ? The affair was very serious, and it ought to be probed to the bottom, with the object of punishing any officers who Jiad connived at a miscarriage of justice.

Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) remarked that a senior officer who did not know how his officers conducted themselves was not fit to be in charge of a body of men. The evidence of ; an officer known to be addicted to drink should not be taken against a soldier in such a case. He considered that tho case could not stand at its present stage. The prestige the Defence Department required that it should be cleared up nnd the blamo placed oil the right shoulders.

Mr. T. M. Wilfoul (Hutt) said it would be generally admitted tbnt Thompson was entitled to mmponsntion, and Hint somebody behind Captain Hoton had erred. Some remarks made in. the House seemed to surest a reflection upon the president of Hie court-martial, Major Rwecizer. This officer was now dead. ITo liiul left a wife and children in New Zealand, and it was cruel to impute blame to him without the fullest investigation of the facts. The ITon. J. G. Contes staled thsit he had known both officers. Captain Hotop was a capablo officer. Minor Sweetzer was iv thoroughly efficient officer, who would not. have lent himself to anything that, was not perfectly above-hoard. He Lad torno the highest, limitation. Mr. Dickson, in reply, agreed that Caplain Hoton had not been the chief offender. The fault lay with the military nourt-mnrUn], which had not given Thompson a fair trial, and with the Defence Department, which should not have kept Captain Hotop in his position.