THE KNYVETT CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14322, 18 March 1910, Page 3

THE KNYVETT CASE.

Sir.—As the few remarks of mine, which you published the other day, have attracted ■ ■ some little attention, perhaps you • will allow me space for a few further comments, which shall be made as brief as possible,. - First oJ • \;<A all I must apologise to. Mr,. A. -" Sandford, who was ?' almost knocked silly" in ! reading , - my letter. I never . anticipated •or intended such a result. I sincerely hope he is • re-????:; covering from the shock of the discovery - ' that , this Dominion contains ; a man - whose opinion differs from that of Mr. A. Sand- . ford. Moreover, I think I can assure him I •*. that his fears as to ■ the establishment of a Congo regime in this country are absolutely v. groundless, at - any rate at present. , Two or three of your other correspondents* ex- /-? ?? press the fear that my letter would mislead - ?? the public. In order to 'i gut the >|publia £jji { right, however, they find ,it necessary to ; ; '■ ~ misquote my words, and to misrepresent my meaning. Take Mr;; R. D. ' Duxfield ' for ex- '' " j ample.' He is - good i enough rto 1 impute ta 9§j me the statement that, " blind" obedience and subordination of V personal opinion "all *:£s•"% all times" is essential to successful warfare, ;; and ; then triumphantly quotes the case vof ;?? Nelson and his blind eye, and exhibits my "lamentable ignorance." The (only'thing <■* that detracts from; the ; force of this argu-■? ment is that I did not write any such thing, YAX'4 but that on 1 the I contrary I am quite, con- •:' vinced that a spirit of true loyalty and' obedience to * superiors requires . intelligent interpretation, and sometimes 'anticipation, ;of orders, ; and even involves ( occasionally fa disobedience to the letter of. an order, whilst ? r carrying out: ■ the r spirit; of a y commander's • - intention. Again, Mr. Duxfield, in quoting my remark that "the , bringing >/« of offensive? charges >>..'« . „ must '<■ tend to be \ subversive ? jsy of discipline" omits the word and thus changes the meaning of the sentence., ,?• Naturally, it; depends • entirely on ' how such , / action by • a junior officer is • dealt -'with by p||i§ the authorities, - whether discipline is actu- || ally; weakened or not. And I notice i that'legv,' Mr. Duxfield is quite clear that a J really, strong officer would take I good ;? care •" that Sip discipline did I not ; suffer. ■< "A.R.'s" imagi- • nation ; has ' further conjured up the principle -; ' 1 of " unintelligent subservience to military command, and the J subordination-' of $ "civil|H rights to military tyranny,",, out. of .my let- <??•:,? ter. Perhaps he will point out the precise words in which he " finds ' the "principle laid ! , v>! down. Until he can do that I will nob trouble you with any remarks on his letter. j§| Another correspondent would - represent ?£ ||g me as holding that no junior officer is ever : justified in reporting his superior. I did not say so, and it is not the fact. There are such exceptional cases, the junior officer taking the consequences, jjE his action is not ; proved on v investigation *to beXjti«tificd:^3S^^ .".Q.1.8." provides'another of mis- I'M quotation'. *He tells me . that Colonel | Tuson [ had replied in the negative, when asked 2if ' Captain Knyvett's lotter was subversive to military.; ; discipline. On looking up the reference he gives " J me, I i find that Colonel §3 Tuson is not said, to have given • any, reply at all. It seemß a little misleading, therefore, to say. that ho replied in the negative. :■■! This , correspondent ?is .very/Btyongj; en 1 the 3$ 'right of junior officers to make complaints, in ?aj proper manner | against their superior officers. This is a well established right, and no one that I know of wishes to dispute it. . ' 11 Captain | Kny vefct i was f not dismissed | for g :. writing a letter or for making a complaint in a proper manner. \He was J dismissed, I : ; ;v take it, for the improper manner in which he made a*" complaint,;- for. making offensive charges against his superior officer, and for f presuming to criticise, also in fans offensive manner, the administration of thfe Defence Department? Probably; also, the nature lof ?S%| his complaint, arising, 'as it did out of his own '< action iin - defying > explicit instructions from headquarters, told against *! him . The military authorities adjudged Captain j vett to have been guilty of conduct |to f the t* v ' . prejudice of good, order and military disci- ' ■). pline. w-I endeavoured, in my previous 2 letter ?to indicate some considerations which probabl j entered • into their formation of that , judg- : :' ment. . I will- 1 not trouble ; you' with a repetition of them - Everyone can form his own opinion, and those who think that Captain 'Knyvett's letter was an eminently proper One, which * should • havel been received with' &:?: y thanks by 'the Minister ,for Defence, or • perhaps its little unconventionalisms' gently pointed out, whilst its demands were promptly attended to;, who wish to see firttly'established ~the' right" of every junior.; officer (whenever his .own' little arrangement ; may ?'■ have been upset) to launch offensive ' per- . sonal charges against highly placed staff offi-?? cers or others, and to tender them, : unasked, ' his adverso criticism of their performance .. ? of i their duty ; who wish to i see ; the service permeated with the game .spirit who think;??/I : there, will Jbe no difficulty ?in J finding efficient officers willing to take high command, with " such a * spirit ' prevailing; who have no fear > that ;an organisation built up on such principles will fail them when put to the, '? supremo te'Bt of war; who think, in fact, ? ?? that such ' conduct as, Captain Kriy vetfc'sk is Jp, i entirely consistent with the'best standards of discipline, will continue to cry out about . injustice ' and '< tho irights} of civilised I man-'lm hood," and demand his reinstatement. -Others, however, will refuse to be drawn into such an .agitation,%'fapt,? becausfe ' ' wish any -■ injustice , done to }an individual, nor because they wish to se® a njilitary despotism or any other ; un-English bogey' ~ ; set up amongst us, but because they are per- : ? suaded .that, Captain Knyvett's recent action ' was . such that no self-respecting il authority . could overlook; because they feel that 'as long as an offioer -in high command . has. the confidence ; of « the : Government and the "country he should be. upheld,',; and should not bo % g called upon to submit tamely, under cover 111 of an official complaint,; to accusations and if? aspersions !on ;, his ; character;" asj an officer,' ' % and a gentleman such as f would ? be? well' ?5. calculated under other circumstances lead: C-C--to a breach of the peace; 'because they feel - that if a spirit of insubordination"is allowed to ; become ■established - within -the araiy discipline will be undermined,? friction' will be everywhere apparent, the 'array; -will be-, < come a prey to faction/: and ; disaster j soone*» or . later . inevitable,; because, in fact, thov" : feel that it is better that Captain Knyvett should suffer his punishment—a' severe one if you will— that the efficiency of tho ' S national ; forcos should bs in any "way r en* dangered by a weakening of duly constituted ''" ' authority. ; iiigg® ||| » F.A.S. ■~%yUy i ""