The N.Z. Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1910. THE KNYVETT "AFFAIRE"

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7028, 17 January 1910, Page 4

The N.Z. Times.

MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1910. THE KNYVETT "AFFAIRE"

WITK WHICH 11 WOORTOBiTEO THK "W»Ml'll«tPS' IHE«P*NDKNT." ESTABLISHED 1845,

Mr Knyvett, , late cajvtajln' of garrison'. Artillery -at Auckland, is quite the man of thie : moment im that city. Jndignation meetings have been, cal- . led-'"abo-uji ■ him and stump speeches made by thcnre citizens who are politicians and those who want to; bo.'Mr SMafcsey' has naturally darted into the fray and made olamorous, appeals for "Justice" and "Supreme Oourt Judges" and so forth. . We. read Mr Massoy's jpeirfarvid utterance witlh considerable attention,, for the Intrusion of a maai liolding the even nominal position, he does into a factional" controversy like this implied that he had /at''least something of importance to. 'say. Th© result is merely to show that he is still the same i.Mr Massey making "the fjame old noisie and blunders. Mr Massey's faoility fox. being, wjvmik about everything amounts to positive genius. So far as we can make out of a mass of entirely irrelevant clamour His .case seems to bo that Mr Knyveitt was dismissed from the service ! though the Court Martial which investigated the matter demanding irevicte was "in favour", of him. , If this ime*?wnl3 . .anything it is that in Ispite of .the Court of Inquiry;. Mr Knyvett is the",victim of a' very gross injustice, hiving .been condemned after 'being.' found mot guilty.' If it were any use doing so. we would ohalJongo Mr filaesey to justify -tihis statement. As it is not, we can. inform our renders that both the, statement made by Mr Massey and his scandalous implication, of "political' interferonoo rare flagrantly untrue and that he is simply talking at .random../

Moreover tie (resolution, passed at the meeting of Auckland citizens a.t which a deputation was appointed to wait on the. Minister for Defence, is ridiculously inaccurate. This resolution says the Oauirt Martial "practictilly acquitted" Mr Hnyvett. Winer e is the proof of ,tha,t? If a rdeputaltio'n is coming to "Wellington with a' case Testing on a resolution so careless of truth .as this it might just as well spare itself 'bhe, trouble. What tbo people who ax-e making all this hub-bub aibout .Mr Knyvett have tot-do is to show in what pa-rticular way there was digression from . rlogalnr milittary process, laid down by specific regulation, in regard to tho whole matter. Was there any irregularity, a-nd, if so, in. what resp»act? It is no uso ■ making 'frenzied appeals to tile mob to lernross'its indignation unless we aire told what tftro wra.th is to bo againslt: Is it in this instance to -be .in consequetaco of dismissal after *

favourable finding by Court Martial? If eo the issue is simple. If it is not ,to be this what is the public ire i-o ex!ha.ust itaelf upon,?

So far as thie demands for "Royal Commissions" and "Supreme Court Judges" -are concerned there is this to be .said: That 31r Knyvett made certain .charges, couched in. general terms and offensive language, against the chief of the general staff. Anyone can make charglas. TGio thing is to show that there is the. element .of trivfch in .tihetn. Mr Jinyveitt did -not do this or—beyond the 'bald assertioai that ho kmejv certain tilings—advance ■a single reason why, aftier his breach of discipline had been disposed of, an extra inquiry should be held. He is not .now hamper/ed by being an officer of volunteers. He is free to justify liimsolf in the most complete way. For instance, ho •claimed to have in. his possession "evidence that if published would create, a grave scandal in volunteer circles." Where is that .evidenca? Where is thtere indication of its scope? Why does not Mr Knyvett publish it or state what it is in order tihat official. andi private iudgmleint niay form ,a<n, opinion whether it justifies a. Commission ? If Mr Knyveitt would do this wie are bound bo say the irequest for am investigation iwould be more understandable, tihlan jt : is when, as .a* prteso'nt, based; on n'ebulous generalities. :

His dismissal from the service is 'quite another mlartlter. His services >euto dispensed with for a breach of the regulations, and if the Auckland politicians and men in. .the street have , any dissent to offer againslfc itliaiti they ought to first .verify tiheir foots and then, aay exactly wlhaA their pbj'ecitlo.n Is. The implication *liiait there Ji'as been any .pblitiea.l interference in this Imatter is. false and cowardly. Tlh'e liactts as far as wo cam leiara tlu'enr aa?e that oin receipt of Mr Knyvett's oom•municartion the Minister: of IDefeince Ihiamdod it .on to the Defends Oouncil. .Tho Defence o>undi| tlheu acted under Who regulations and set up the Co-art Martial. The Binding of the, Cfourt Martial was submitted to Cabinet and unanimously endorsed. 1 Colonel Robin, wtase n,amie is being bandied about by ■Auckland's irate mob orators in an offensive mannier, stood apiart from the proceedings from - : - first tia last. Mr Knyvott has placed himself in -the wrong by his impetuous conduct, and 'Auckland's peculiarly parochial newspapers .and politicians aria .mlailring nraitters worse by their, faa-cial "protests." .A perusußl of some of iho '"speeches" delivered in thia nortiWern, wity tihe other night furnish, the club to the motives underlying thla agitation' whicQi is ■ being so sedulously wou-ked u.p into an "affaire. Enyvetit."