TRANSPORT 49.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17206, 28 June 1916, Page 6

TRANSPORT 49.

OFFICER’? CONDUCT IMPUGNED.

STRONG LETTER AND LIVELY

DISCUSSION

PARLIAMENT PROMISED AN

INQUIRY,

[From Ora Correspondent.]

WELLINGTON, June 27

A report was presented by tho Hon J. Allen to-day from the quartermaster of Transport 49, giving the dietary of tiio troops on the vessel during her voyage outwards in April last. Ihe report, which was in reply to allegations of had food and improper language by the officer commanding the troops on the vessel, when a petition signed by a hundred odd men and twelve non-commissioned officers on the quality of the food was presented to Him, stated that prunes, hgs, rice and tup.eca pudding and other delicacies to luo military panne wero part ot the men's ordinary lare. Mr Poole, who read a letter the other day drawing attention to complaints on transport 4b, said that most emphasis was laid, not on the iocd but on a statement in Lie letter tuat tUe officer commanding used unbridled and improper language to the men called beiore bun. He added: “The Minister is now laying emphasis on tho food question. I still say that if a man in command of a company is hung with Victoria Crosses from iiis scalp to his feet, lie lias no right to talk to men in the way lie is alleged to have

spoken.” Mr Wilford protested against the attitude adopted by the Minister of Defence % when members brought forward grievances. ’The member was put in such a position as to make tho country and the House believe that he was deliberately trying to cause trouble or dissension. Mr Poole s question was put with a clear, sensible idea of having the matter sifted. He congratulated the member for Auckland W est, and for himself he would, no matter what the ministerial attitude, always place any complaints brought to him to the Minister in the House, in order that the Minister might have an opportunity of answering them openly. It was a duty to tho country. ANOTHER LETTER READ.

Mr M’Combs gave a still more serious turn to the discussion by reading a copy of a letter received by a Wellington resident from a soldier about Transport 49, in which it was declared that the food on the vessel was scandalous. somo of the meat served being absolutely putrid. The writer referred also to the alleged incident where noncommissioned officers signing tho petition were haled before Major Brereton, commanding officer, and five other officers expressed the opinion that the commanding officer’s language was both cowardly and seditious. Tne letter alleged that he told the men they were cowards and that if tho rest, of the men on hoard were like them it would be a good thing for the Empire, the Army and all aboard if a German submarine were to torpedo them. After Mr M’Combs had read the letter and expressed his willingness to give the writer’s name to the Minister, so that full inquiry might be made, the Hon J. Allen moved that the letter should be laid on the table. PROTECTION DEMANDED FOR WRITER. Mr Veitch: I would like tho Minister to give us some assurance that if this letter is tabled he will give the writer some protection. Ho is away at the front now. The Hon J. Allen: So is the officer he condemns. Mr Veitch: Yes, but I want to know if this man, assuming this charge is correct, is going to be left to the discipline of this particular- officer. If, on the other hand, the man has made untruthful charges, he is not fit to wear tho uniform. It seems to me, therefore, that, in view of the serious nature of the charge, it is the duty of the Defence Minister to bring both men back to Now Zealand and h.ave the matter inquired into. If the gation is made outside New Zealand ft would be a grave injustice to the man. Mr Veitch went on to say that what amused him was tho simple faith which Ministers had in the reports of officers, especially regarding any matter of discipline. Making out reports was a science. It had been part of his own business as a railway man. Mr Buick: Satisfactory reports? Mr Veitch: Yes, satisfactory reports to myself- (Laughter.) He went on to contend that tho Minister should not relv so absolutely on departmental reports in the present case. There should be a public inquiry. , , .. . Mr Isitt asked if it were a fact that even if the allegations in the letter wore truo the man would be subject to penalties under military law. The Hon J. Allen: Ho should certainly have made complaints to the proper quarters. Members: Complaint was made, j Mr Isitt: Then the man is liable to punishment under military, law. W ell, I think, therefore, that if his statement is borne out he should receive some protection. / GOOD WORDS FOR MAJOR BRER ETON.

Mr Hudson next rose and said that lie knew Major Brereton, tne ‘officer against whom tho allegations had been im.de. Ho was a constituent ot his and was a man of high standing in civil tl fo. lie had done Ins duty in the South African war, was dangerously wounded ill Gallipoli and had volunteered to go ba.ff. Tho statement in the letter read might be true, but he, for one, doubted it if it referred to Major Brereton. - \Li Massey stated that he had frequently heard good reports of tne officer, who was one of the best in New Zealand. „ . M r Wilfovd: Is it fair to raise this? Do you suggest the other mail is not equally gooriP Mr Massev: The whole thing has b'-eu published. He added that, he had received three letters from men on Trail-port 49, giving good accounts. A serious charge had been made, which nuisi be probed to the bottom. It could not be allowed to drop without U 5 Mr Colvin spoke well of the officer, but urged the Government to remember that boys went away on the transport whose'word was equally as good as an officer's. Tho Minister of Defence ought not to take an officers word alone. Tho Hcn J. Allen: I haven’t accused anybody. . Mr Colvin: The moil'always get the worst of it. Mr Young asked if the men made complaint to a superior officer. Mr Boole: They constantly complained. Mr Young urged the Government to have a ‘civil inquiry in New Zealand. There was just a suspicion that the men making the charges might be subject to tho tyranny of their superior officers. Mr Anderson supported tho last speaker’s demand. Our army was a citizen army and the men we:<_• nos likely to submit to any military despotism. Mr Stntham declared that he was a stickler for discipline, but laying the

letter on the table practically conduuutd the writer to military punishment. He wished to warn the member lur Lyttelton. A Member: lie has no option. Air Massey: Do you want him to defy Parliament? Mr Statham: No, but lie need only submit the portions he read. Last year the House passed legislation enabling military tribunals to accept evidence not strictly legal. Here was the danger of it. His idea of military justice was a very poor one indeed? “I have great admiration for brave soldiers,” added AD- Statham, “ but when it comes to a question of justice the military mind is nob specially fitted for administering it.”

Mr Payne suggested that every soldier should be given the right to communicate direct to the Prime Minister. On every member of the House rested the responsibility of seeing justice dono to a solitary private. It should insist on bringing both men back. Mr Hindmarsh said that the House should set up a Select Committee to deal with matters of this sort. Air Forbes: What about the Secret Defence Committee?

Air Hindmarsh: Absolutely useless. Air Poole:', It was a glorious bluff. Mr Hindmarsh asked was it fair to allow the great expense of £BO for special fittings on a transport because Lady Godley went to England on it. Air M’Co'mbs said he was willing to lay the letter on the table if the House would permit him to accompany it with the petition of the 103 men. including twelve non commissioned officers, dealing with the same complaint. MINISTER PROMISES INQUIRY. The Alinister of Defence said that the debate had its serious side, but it was amusing. Air Hindmarsh was a member of the Secret Defence Committee, and spoke well of its work. The Government was under contract to return Lady Godley to England. ' Ho would provide any information about expense. It was very unfair to drag in the name of a lady who did valuable work for sick and wounded soldiers. He had never received complaints about the ship. If the letter was laid on the table at his request he would give this assurance: “No men shall suSer through any action of mine, but charges have been made, and until to-day nobody defended the officer. He musi be judged not guilty until inquiry had been made.” Every possible effort would be made to search out the truth. It might be impracticable to bring tho men back, but careful preliminary inquiry would bo made to see if it was justifiable to bring back either or both of them. If the House wished the force to do its work as it should, it ought not. without good cause, interfere witfc the course of discipline. Transports were a very difficult proposition. It was due to the exeroiee of a proper amount of discipline by the officers that the vessels were able to run between New Zealand and the front with so few accidents. The officer whose name was in question had served his country over thirty years. He was just as much a civilian as the members accus : ing him of being a military despot. Tho Alinister added that he could not allow an officer to he attacked. without hearing both sides of the question. Ho hoped members receiving complaints would submit them for inquiry before poisoning the public mind. It was in the nature of some soldiers to growl. “ It’s their privilege,” added Mr Allen. When the letter and petition wero laid on the table the Alinister of Defence declared that the letter was simply addressed “Dear Tom,” and had no signature. The petition only stated that 103 signatures were attached, but the names were not there. Air Rhodes: It’s a fake.

Air A!’Combs said he would give the writer’s name to the Alinister when he got it from the Wellingtonian who received the letter.