MARCHANT'S DISMISSAL

Evening Star, Issue 21836, 27 September 1934, Page 3

MARCHANT'S DISMISSAL

NAVAL COURT MARTIAL MINISTER DEFENDS FINDINGS (From Oon Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 26.. The action of a naval court martial it Devonport in dismissing Engineercommandcr Merchant from Ins ship was strongly defended hy Mr Cobhe in the House to-day. Mr Harris had suggested that Merchant had been treated unduly harshly, and that this was a cause of discontent at the naval base. Mr Harris said it was true that. Merchant had admitted a technical ofiencc, in so far as he admitted that a man had been employed at his house in departmental time at a cost to the department of 7s 6d. Jt was recognised that the officers of the Royal Navy employed men at their homes, and this practice was done throughout the whole of the service. No exception had been taken to this until the court martial of Marehant. The feeling at the naval base, continued-Mr Harris, was that an extraordinarily drastic and severe punishment had been meted out for what was recognised at the worst as a technical offence. The case might have been met by a reprimand, and he felt that •i full and exhaustive inquiry should be held into all the circumstances surrounding the court martial. This officer had given yeoman service to His Majesty’s Navy' in New Zealand, and the refit of the Diomede was a monument to him. He thought the refit of the Dunedin that was to take place shortly would give the Naval Department the opportunity to remedy the severity of the sentence imposed on this officer by giving the officer concerned control of this work. The people of Devonport who knew the circumstances felt that the prestige of the Navy n'as at stake. “ I am not satisfied from the findings of the court martial that the man had a fair run from His Majesty's Navy in New Zealand.” adder Mr Harris. The Minister said the actual fact was that at the court martial Marehant was found guilty of having knowingly signed a false official document a wages sheet. The circumstances were that a civilian joiner had been employed for a full day on ordinary work according to the wages sheet, whereas the man had actually been employed at the home of this officer. The court martial had dismissed Marehant from the shin, and subsequently tbe whole of the facts, and evidence had been submitted to the Solicitor-General, who had found that the verdict was in accordance with the weight of the evidence. Before and after this court martial, Marehant had made certain charges against other officers, which had not been proved. If there Pad been other irregularities known to Marehant, it was his duty to report them at once to his superior officer. It was quite incorrect to say that the officers had cmuloved ratings to do work at their homes, for the naval regulations were very strict on this point. Very grave reflections were made on an officer who now occupied a very high position in the naval service in the Old Country, said the Minister. “ It is easy to make reflections on an officer who is so far away, and it would be very difficult for the‘officer to haw an opportunity of proving his innocence. These charges should have be ?u'made before ho left.” Mr Harris; They were made before he left The Minister. They were not made officially.” Hi added that he had personally looked into the evidence at considerable length, and the Naval Board could not take any action in his opinion other than what the court martial had done.