INVIDIOUS COMPARISONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17215, 18 January 1918, Page 3

INVIDIOUS COMPARISONS.

Sm. —Coloixd E. li. Smith, as reported iix the press, speaking to tho first bateh of men, originally Class C2, who in tlio reexaniination by special board wcro diuwificd CI said: "During- the course of a conversation with a veteran soldier recently ho was told that the British soldiers iu France were in 80 divisions, and! only three of thoso divisions wcro in tho 'A' class. One was Scottish, another was tho Australians, a? id a tliird was tho New Zealanders." This is a most interesting state; incut, and when addressed to mom just off to oarop (not to mention tho larger audicuco who read tile newspapers), must mako the poople belonging to tho Scottish, Australian, iind New Zealand oomnrunitiee swell with price, without necessarily getting "swelled head," which Colonel Smith warned his hearers against getting. I thought, however, that it was agreed thai there should b<> no more of these invidious comparisons. Sir Eric Geddes, speaking in tho British rarlianrejit 1 his. week, said that England had contributed 4.530.000 men, Scotland 620,000. Wales 230.000, Ireland 170,000, and the dominions and colonies 900.000 to tho Imperial ai-my. It seems unfair to surest that out of 4,530,000 English soldiers they could not get a single division with the "A"_ class. I was somehow under tho impression thai the English had dono qaito well in this war, also the Canadians, Welshmen, and Irishmen ; but it seems I was mistaken. Out of a prepondenmeo of entries, not a single winner. Think of it! All tho same, when I stand before Colonel E. It. Smdth, to bo told what my country expects of me, I should prefer him not to mention things like that, for, as Sir Thomas Browne said: "As charity covers, modestly preventefch, a multitude of sins." — I am, etc., Second Division.

Dunedin, January 16

THE DEFENCE DEPARTMENT.

Sin, —A Press Association telegram from Christehuxeh published in your ot Wednesday states that fc>ir Joseph Ward had roplied to an interviewer that •'personally ho could sec no reason at all why in New Zealand tho sanio procedure should not be followed as in Australia"—i.o., regarding the publication of some kind of information as to tho dates of incoming and outgoing mails. Sir Joseph Ward then ■'pointed out that tho regulations controlling tho censorship h,ere were in the hands of tho Defence Department." It may be remembered that tho Dunedin City Council forwarded a request to tho acting-Prime Minister (Sir James Allen) many months ago, asking that information regarding mails might bo published in tho newspapers. Sir James, in wisdom, however, said the request could not bo .acceded to. My point is this, Sir: After what wo know about the Motuihi scandal and tho methods adopted by the Defence Department for "safeguarding" the prisoners, would any evenlybalanced mind in the dominion agree that tho department's opinion regarding the publication or non-publication of such information was worth a brass farthing? Moreover, in tho face of the fact that in Australia snch information is published, and also in view of the statement of Sir Joseph Ward that "personally he can seo no reason why it should not be," are not the liberties, or privileges, say, of the people cbing unwarrantably interfered with, and is it not about time the papers decided to defy the Defence Department on this particular point? Why should the D.efonce Department have such autocratio control? Has the Cabinet no say on the matter? The other day a Dunedin M.P. frankly admitted to mo that he had no moro information of the inside doings of tho Cabinet than the man in tho street. He further admitted that when questions were considered by Cabinet the Minister in charge of any particular department brought forward his proposals concerning his department, and the other Ministers, in the great majority, of cases, took tho first Minister's judgment to be correct and agreed to the proposals. Lastly, the Dunedin M.P. admitted that if it were "put that way," tho logical conclusion was that tho destiny of tho mail power of tho dominion most probably rested in the hands of one man —Sir James Allen 1 Now, Sir, it is common talk that Sir James Allen's views on the matter of sending men to tho front aro not those of all his colleagues in the National Government —why not give it its absolutely true name and rail it tho Coalition Government?—and that it was fully anticipated by these colleagues that Sir James could be got out of the way by sending him to represent New Zealand at tho Imperial War Conference. The rather cryptic information, from Wellington published by you this morning conveys the impression that Sir James Allen has "smelt a rat." and declines to go to tie conference. Bnt if he were selected by a "National" Government would he not be in duty bound to obey? That is one thing a Defence Minister should, I imagine, know how to do. Another thing, Sir. before I close. Your "special" from Wellington says that "Cabinet was unable to agree to-day about the representation of New Zealand at the Imperial War Cabinet. . . . Mixed up with tho question of the choice ... is tho qncstion of the future control of tho Defence Department." The?e be weighty matters, suroly. Evidently, however, in tho opinion of the Hon. J. A. Hanan (Minister of Education) they aro not as weighty as tho somewhat laboured proceedings of" tho University Senate. At any rate, I noticethat Mr Hanan is attending the sessions of tho Senate, and could not therefore bo at tho Cabinet meeting. Still, tho old saying that a people is just as well governed as it deserves to bo stands as true to-day as on the occasion it was first uttered.—l am, etc., LOOKKB-OH.