CURRENT TOPICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CI, Issue 11874, 25 April 1899, Page 4

CURRENT TOPICS.

PLUNDERING THE ' 'SOLDIER.

In time of war it is occasionally difficult to prevent Tommy Atkins from plundering. In time ol 'peaoe it

seems always difficult to protect him against being plundered. The robbery of the soldier is done, by :his own comrades, and the instrument by which it is effected is the secret commission. In theory Tommy’s food and drink, if plain, are the best of their kind, in practice they are often what it pleases the contractor and the canteen steward to give him. More than one capable Judge of military life maintains that over three-quarters of the privates and non-commissioned officers whose duties bring them in direct contact with, army contractors are more or less ifi the contractors’ pay. This may be an.exaggeration, but it is an exaggeration with some basis of truth in it. A system of. "petty bribery rules. In each case the allowance is given nominally for some service. Thus, the butcher has his hide money for not injuring the skins when flaying tke carcases;' the master baker ia paid for keeping tie sacks clean. But it is when we come to the supply of the animal wants of the soldier that the bribery system develops in a Way which makes Tommy suffer. For the benefit of civilians it may be well to explain that each barracks or station lias a canteen or canteens, supplying beer and provisions for the troops. The troops have to patronise : the canteen for the drink and, provisions purchased for each mess in common; though each man is free to buy from the canteen, or from outside, those: articles of food or drink he buys individually. . The canteen J is owned by the regiment it serves; it has the monopoly of trade inside the barracks, i a committee of officers exercises supreme control, and the profits are used for regimental purposes. A sergeant. or a,rmy pensioner is put in charge, and is known as tbe canteen steward. There axe regiments where the officers exercise such scrutiny that secret profits are impossible, trading concerns which will not bribe the officials, and stewards who would not touch the secret allowances. But many army contractors are compelled to pay the stewards 5 per cent on the total amount of sales if they wish to continue business. Prices are cut so low in military contracts, that a .5 per cent commission makes an enormous hole in profits. Some firms have recently been attempting to get up a deputation, to the army authorities to ensure stricter enactments against those officials who accept money. One house of brewers Messrs, Ind, Coope and Co.—-has gone further. It circularised' the regiments, declaring that it meant to take the strictest precautions against any of its agents bribing or treating, or in any way unfairly attempting to influence trade. It declared that it had put all its agents under oath not to bribe, and would proceed against any who did so for perjury.

how it IS DONE.

Notwithstanding regulations, circulars and all other means of keeping canteen stewards in the path of

righteousness, many of them still get their 5 per cent. A brewer, in conversation with a representative of a London journal, explained the method in which these fellows coerce contractors. “ Suppose,” he said, “we,get a contract for a new regiment. Our agent in the place meets the steward at the recognised house of call, and there is such a house in every garrison town. ‘ You’ll give me the usual, I suppose?’ the steward says. ‘Oh, no,’ my agent replies. ■ We have-stopped all that.’ * The steward says no more, but the .next- barrel of our beer that is tapped, he tampers with. Perhaps he slips a little bit of soap in it, the size of a pea; that, will spoil it for good and all; perhaps he adds water, of more' probably ho only gives it a shake. The shake stirs up all the sediment,' and when Tommy comes in the canteen and calls for a pot the barman draft's srp the liquor as thick as mud. ‘ Look here,’ Tommy cries, ‘what’s up now?’ ‘I can't help it/ the canteen steward says. ‘ We’ve got a new lot of brewers, and this is the way they’re serving us.’ Off Tommy goes to his Captain, grumbling that he cannot get a glass of liquor fit to drink in the canteen. Off the Captain goes to the .Colonel. Now, commanding officers have plenty to do without everlastingly troubling about canteens; and the Colonel quickly declares that if the new brewers do not suit, they had bettor go back to the old ones. And so we lose the contract because we didn’t pay the usual 5 per cent.” Other contractors are, of course, treated'in a style similar to that applied to the brewers. It is gratifying to know that officers do all they can to prevent secret commissions, though it is distinctly unsatisfactory that their efforts have not been more, generally successful. There is, however, one particular in which there is ground for complaint against some of them. “ Regiments,” remarks the writer we have already quoted, “ are more and more getting ih the way of giving their orders for beer or provisions to great limited liability trading companies, in which officers of the regiment are considerable shareholders. A specially flagrant instance recently came under my notice. A large trading firm completed a "big order for the Amy. There was some difference of opinion on how the order was carried out, and several high officials reported on it. One of the highest officers yv\io favoured tin way the company had carried out the con-

tract iactaally bald five hundred shares in the company,” The officer referred to may .not have allowed his interest in the company to influence his decision, but it would be well, in the interests of the Service, ii a regulation were passed preventing th? possibility of such a thing. Unless officers ' are absolutely above suspicion, it cannot be expected that their snbordinates will aljways- have clean, hands.

10 PRAISE OB NOT TO PRAISE.

It has been, said that the two injuries to which mankind in general, and especially public men, are always

exposed, are detraction and adulation. In other words, an individual ■toay be over-praised or over-blamed, and lie may receive barm either way. The LonIctoa “Spectator” in a recent issue raises a •point of some speculative interest. It wants to know whether the flatterer or the detractor is the more dangerous, and whether the public ffiah has more to fear from the one than the other. It puts forward the view that the palm for meanness rests not with "the man who unduly censures, but with the Tuan who wantonly and unnecessarily praises, “Detraction,” says the “Specta.through honest dislike of a man’s general character, find it really hard to recognise his positive merits. There is something, it seems to‘us, Slightly meaner and more contemptible in adulation than in detraction. While the latter is an act of envy, the former is an act of hypocrisy, for he who does It disguises his real sentiments from pure y 'personal motives and considerations of gain. Do we not all instinctively feel that the fawning courtier who would turn against his Sovereign at a moment’s notice is about as contemptible a creature as the world can show? The detractor is malicious, but not , necessarily contemptible.”. In spite of all this,,there are few men who would not,, it they had the choice, prefer to have too much adulation rather than top much blame, ihe « Spectator,” however, advances. instances... !fcO show. that, censure, and even, malicious, is often a salutary discipline somejtimes the test of greatness. It cites the case bf Aristides, who was sent into banishment, tad of Socrates, who was poisoned, because they introduced too high a standard of life tad thought for the Athlns erf their time. f‘ phink,” says the “ Spectator, of t e kpiteful crew whom Pope immortalised in the ‘Dunciad,’ or the petty, heartless, brainless criticism of the Lake Poets and of Keats, or the superficial attacks on Carlyle and the silly nonsense printed in London newspapers within the last twenty years ton the great musical dramas of Wagner. Few great men have been free from the most venomous detraction coming from those who were too ignorant and dull to recognise unusual merit.” Another example is quoted in that of the Athenian philosopher who exclaimed, “What foolish thing have I said?” when the crowd applauded Mm. It nlay be admitted, as a general conclusion, that the habit of bestowing foolish praise |s harmful to all concerned, but whether the practice of slander and detraction is not more harmful remains an open question.