The Oamaru Mail FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1903.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8295, 25 September 1903, Page 2

The Oamaru Mail FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1903.

The case of Captain Fisher, a. Christchurch Volunteer officer, which, has been twice before Parliament, is deserving of some notice as having a distinct interest for Volunteers generally, more particularly in relation to the presumed curtailment of civil liberties imposed upon. • citizen soldiers by the Volunteer regulations. Briefly told, the .facts are these.: There was a meeting lately in Christchurch of representatives of each New Zealand Contingent to South Africa, at which it was decided to try and. ascertain whether there were still necessitous -cases to be dealt with before the Patriotic Fund was disposed of, and a letter was written to the papers by Captain Fisher arid another upon the subject. A few days later, Colonel Porter, the officer commanding the Canterbury Volunteers, wrote to Captain Fisher askms if the signature to that latter was his, ana, on receiving .in answer in the affirmative, Colonel Porter told. Captain Fisher that he had be-en guilty of a gross breach of discipline in corresponding with the newspapers on military matters. ■ Captain Fisher denied that he had offended against- the regulations, and pointed out that the fund was a citizens' fund unconnected with the Defence Department. The matter was referred to Major-General Babington, the Commandant of tlie Forces, who upheld Colonel Porter, and said that Captain Fisher could not claim a dual personality, and must conform to the regulations. The result was that Captain Fisher was suspended and placed under, arrest. The matter was brought before the House by Mr T. E. Taylor, who, it may be remarked, showed a great deal more feeling than was called for, and indulged in much unnecessarily warm. talk. The Premier, who is also Defence Minister, supported Colonel Porter and the Commandant, and loads la strong complaint about the bringing up of such matters in the House as likely to weaken discipline. In the course of a discussion upon the subject, Mr Lewis expressed the opinion that the proceedings bordered on the ridiculous. That observation was apt, but insufficient. Beneath the ludicrousness of the affair there lies the question whether a man in becoming a Volunteer must be held to surrender all rights of citizenship. It is a perfectly correct thing that a Volunteer should be restrained from writing to the newspapers upon military matters in such a way as to either challenge the authority of his superiors or bring them into disrepute or ridicule, but it is a,straining of the regulations to say that a Volunteer shall not communicate to the Press his views upon a subject of public interest only remotely connected with the Defence Department and absolutely dissociated from the Volunteer Force. The Patriotic Fund of Christchurch is a citizens' fund in the disposal of which the military authorities have no rights other than may accrue from membership of the Managing Committee. To say, therefore, that Captain Fisher:was restrained from corresponding- to the newspapers in relation, to the 'disposal of the fund is to place a strangely strained interpretation upon the regulations and to violate the rights of citizenship. It seems to us, looking at the matter dispassionately and with every desire to see discipline maintained in the Volunteer Force and especially, to see a good example in that respect set by subordinate officers, that Colonel Porter manifested an excess of zeal in treating Captain Fisher's letter as a breach of discipline. But he is an excellent officer, who has done good service for the colony, and it is a matter for regret that. Captain Fisher, in. his communications to his commanding officer, did not adopt a less aggressive tone than he appears to have done., judging from wliat has been disclosed. Probably Sad he shown a less aggressive spirit the matter would have been allowed to drop, and the extreme step of placing him under arrest would not have been taken. As to the dictum laid down by the Commandant that a Volunteer cannot claim a dual ' personality, it must be frankly said that if men on joining the Volunteer Force are to be compelled to surrender their civil rights then there will either be an end to citizen soldiership or the force will be composed of tools and fools. Men of spirit who prize liberty of action, in relation to matigrs of citizenship unconnected with the military organisation will not be found joining the force, which will in consequence sufier in prestige and usefulness. We can scarcely believe that Major-General Babington, . who has displayed a keen perception of the distinction between a voluntary military force and a regular; army, can have intended that his . words • should receive such a broad interpretation as they are capable of • receiving. If he did so intend them, theft he is strangely out of sympathy with the true spirit of Volunteering,. and his influence for good j must suffer as a consequence of the feeling of mistrust that a knowledge of the fact : would engender. Altogether the episode is one to be regretted, but it is not improbable that it may be productive of some good in the regulation being so revised that a reasonable limit will be put to its operations in •future.

The-notification received by fii? Waitaki iCounty Council from the Chief Engineer of Bailways that- it is intended to charge half 'tile.cost of tlife upkeep of the two .combined t over 'the.- Waitaki.: River, amounting to £6sß, ; ;might "be'viewed-as a .ponderous ; joke 'of 'an ' official- 'kind: were ' it not that ■such a view.is. forbidden by-the'intimation 'that the amount -will.be deducted from the "Government -subsidy- payable to the Coun!cil- .This, gives.. to~the notification an ap-. paaranoe of grim and ..srreedy earnestness ■that precludes the possibility of levity. The abruptness of the intimation and the cool, .'calculating manner in which the Department first assess the amount that they deem, ipayable and then proceed to the collection fofrtKe'sum without-affording an opportunity of: challenge bet-okens a degree of enterprise

and energy of which, public officials had not 'previously been generally suspected. But possibly this unwonted display of bustle is only due to a fitful desire to make up for lost time in some measure. For over a quarter of a century tie. bridges have jbeen in existence, and it must be assumed that it has taken the official mind all those long years to grasp the idea that, because a few'vehicles, horsemen, and pedestrians ftiake use of bridges that are essential to the railways, the County Council has responsibility for maintaining them in good repair. The only alternative to such an assumption is to conclude that there lias arisen in the Railway Department a financial genius who has conceived the notion that the railways can be made to pay handsomely if only the cost of maintenance can be squeezed out of the local bodies. The proposition is $o monstrous that- we are not surprised at the indignation of the County ■Council over tlio matter. What does surprise us is that Sir Joseph Ward should have sanctioned the proceeding. We will be a great deal more surprised if he_ does not revoke the order when its enormity is pointed out to him.