OFFICERS' KIT

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 96, 24 April 1916, Page 8

OFFICERS' KIT

TO HIE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr. Allen's last statement on this matter is so misleading and has caused such, a lot of talk among those most concerned that I would like to even further discuss the subject. He gives a list, which he says was carefully prepared and checked by staff officers, of all an officer requires. It does not allow anything for text-books and manuals, yet I have seen a list of books required to be purchased by the musketry instructor aud chief infantry instructor which cost not less than 365. Take another item. No British warm coat is . provided for. Does any staff officer consider this unnecessary or extravagant? In England it is considered necessary by the authorities—why . the difference in New Zealand ? Again, two towels, three pairs of socks, two uniforms, a-nd two pairs of boots are undoubtedly few in cold weather for quite obvious reasons. In" addition to the under-stated cost of what officers require, owing to the meagreness of the list given, it has been pointed out to me that at least two> items of cost given in the list is incorrect, and the prices ac: tually charged at Defence stores are substantially greater. Now there is the vexed question of uniforms—whether they should be slop made or not. It might have struck anyone, except a person to whose interest it was not to see the point, that seeing that officers have been (rightly or wrongly, it does not matter) paying for certain things to equip themselves out of tHeir own pockets; they would buy in the be6t places it was possible to do so.. Surely Mr. Allen does not wish to have his officers noticeable for their illdressed or slovenly appearance. Why, then, cavil at an expenditure of, say £5 10s per uniform ? It is far from extravagant, surely. The value of smartness in an officer's appearance is not to be despised, while it is also to be remembered that his duty does not end on the parade ground. Now, lastly, the sword. It is, I grant, not used on the field. But it is the officer's badge of office, and as such should be possessed by him. However, it is not a " necessary." Far from being inclined to blame the officer who has, without any guarantee of assistance, equipped himself better than his grant allows, I am pleased to see officers ready to make further sacrifices for what they believe to be their duty. As for Mr. Allen's " Here is what the Government say is necessary," I think the above should show that Government have been miserly to a degree. I reiterate that any unprejudiced person must sec tbat the present allowance is too small. England gives £50, Australia almost the same, but with higher pay. What is the inference?— I am, etc., W. L. SMITH. Wellington, 21st April, 1916.