A MARE’S NEST

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 35, 4 November 1922, Page 4

A MARE’S NEST

THE DEFENCE STORES , ALLEGATIONS V COLONEL MCDONALD’S CHARGES REFUTED REPLY BY MINISTER OF DEFENCE BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION. Christchurch, November 3. Replying to Colonel T. W. McDonald’s charges against the Government of maladministration and inefficiency, chiefly in connection with the defence stores, Sir Heaton Rhodes. Minister of Defence, said to an interviewer: —• “As to Colonel McDonald’s statement that his charges have not been refuted, I ivill leave it to the public ±o say whether that is so or not. after having read the report of the Defence Committee as laid on the table of the House. I maintain there is absolutely nothing ’jn the charges, charges, by the, way, +Zat Colonel McDonald has sflited in evidence were not charges, but merely a ‘statement.’ He now refers to them as charges. As to the insinuation that members of the committee were biased, all I can say is that tho committee was an important tribunal because it was representa-tive-of all parties in the House, and its decision was absolutely unanimous. If further evidence is required in support, of the assertion that there is nothing in Colonel McDonald’s charges, there is the fact that the House adopted the committee’s report without discussion. It was clearly shown that the rifles given to Coloned Niebels were practically, of no value. Twelve of them had some value for museum purposes, but the remainder were of much less value. Similar rifles were sold at 30s. per ton. Regarding tho guns that were presented to Colonel Nichols, as stated, this only involves the question of a sum of £l5 3s. 10d., Colonel Nichols having paid the whole of the charges for transport of the gun and the railway fares of the men who mounted the gun at his own home. The second gun was presented to the borough at Oamaru. It is true that a team of artillery men were sent to truck the gun, hut there was not oh© penny piece paid by the Government with the exception of the wages of the men, and as for as the men, if they had not been trucking guns, they wmdd have been performing ordinary drill . It was considered that thev were doing work that was just as useful for instructional nurposes as drill in the fort. Included in the sum of £l5 odd is estimated the wages of the men who mounted the gun at Colonel Nichol’s own house, but Colonel Nichols paid the men more than the amount of their wages. I note that Colonel McDonald refers to the stores that were not accounted for. It was shown in evidence, and nroved conclusively that between 1911 and 1920. £105.000 worth of stores wore missing. 511656 were written down by the Defence Denartment in conference with representatives of the Audit Department and Treasury. It was also shown that the bulk of these stores had been taken overseas on mobilisation, and, therefore, had been used. Thev were written down to a ouarter of their value, to about £26.000. and that is the limit allowed by the Army regulations When it is considered that the life of a uniform is only a very few years, and the life of a rifle barrel about three years, it is probable these stores could have been quite pjoperly written off altogether now. As to post-war equipment and the statement that the countrv had to pay £406.000 for equipment that was not required, this charge and the charge o f waste in eonp©ction with the purchase of service wagons. I answered fully in the House. The wagons for the First Division were in exchano-e for wagons handed in by th© N.Z.E.F. at th« olos© of the war, and any wagons obtained for the Second Division wore bought at 50 per cent, of their value, and even now the price had not been definitely settled, as the matter is still under negotiation with th© War Office. x Thor© is no doubt that although Colonel McDonald said he made notes from /he files, he had letters copied word for word. T leave it to the public to nidge whether an offieor of the Defence Department or of anv other Department should after retirement use information so obtained.”