EX-CAPTAIN KNYVETT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2983, 17 May 1911, Page 6

EX-CAPTAIN KNYVETT.

' THE COURT-MARTIAL. WELLINGTON, May 9. The Knyvett case was reopened this morning before a court comprising Colonel Heard (president), Lieutenant-colonel Burnett Stuart, Major Menzies, Major Turner, Captain Roberts, Lieutenant Thornton, and the Judge Advocate (Lieuteuantcolonel J. R. Reed). Captain Dawson (of Auckland) acted as the prisoner's "friend." The accused is charged under section 40 of the Defence, Act with -having been guilty of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, in that he commented on the action of his superior officer, the Chief of the General Staff (Colonel Robin), in an improper and insubordinate manner.

Captain Spencer Smith acted as prosecutor, and Mr T. Neave appeared as counsel for him.

Captain Dawson raised the preliminary point as to whether Knyvett was amenable to military discipline. The Judge Advocate stated that accused was so amenable.

The Judge Advocate also explained that Captain Dawson would only be allowed! to address the court if he appeared as officer-counsel; if he appeared as accused's " friend" he would be allowed to advise him only. Captain Dawson, then elected to appear as officer-counsel.

Captain Dawson, when the charge was read, said he desired to object to it under rule 32 on the ground that it " did not disclose an offence." He submitted that accused's letter of 10th November was an official complaint under the regulations which existed at that time. Mr Neave, in reply, said that no objection was raised to the making of the complaint? but it was submitted that in making his complaint he did more than was necessary ; he made his letter the vehicle of scandal and impertinence. The Judge Advocate gave it as his opinion that the letter was not privileged. It was no part to the proceedings and could not be raised as a bar to the proceedings of the court-martial. When asked to plead, accused answered "Not guilty." Mr Neave outlined at length the facts already briefly set out, and said the only considerations with which the court could deal were —.(1) Did accused write the letter? and (2) Did the letter come within the description " calculated to prejudice good order and military discipline"? The plea of provocation or the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against Colonel Robin were entirely irrelevant. Objection would be taken by the prosecution at the right time to the leading of any evidence which might tend to show the truth of the charges made against Colonel Robin.

After hearing .evidence, the case for the prosecution was closed. in opening the case for the defence, Captain Dawson said counsel for the prosecution in his address had stated that the defence was debarred in his opinion from calling any evidence with regard to the surrounding circumstances or anything that might be construed as provocation. He thought he \ as entitled to call evidence surrounding the actual despatch of the letter and to produce the newspaper; articles written in regard to Captain Knyvett's trip to Wellington. They bore very vitally on the case. It would be his duty to endeavour to pi'ove that his friend was suffering under a heavy and what he considered a grievous wrong. He wished to lay his grievance before the proper tribunal; consequently Captain Knyvett wrote the letter. On November 10, 1909, he went to the colonel of his division in reference to the matter, and it was his bounden duty to do so. Hisj client had no guilty intent. He showed the letter to his colonel first, and to nobody else, "and he . received a warning. Nothing was said by the colonel concerning the wording of the letter or that it was insubordinate. Guilty intent could not be assumed against an officer bearing the record and character of Captain Knyvett. Such intent had not beenj

proved. The letter vras sent through the proper channels, and could not be to the prejudice of military discipline. Volunteer officers were not trained in the finer points of the service. In the past the regiments did not have trained adjutants as at present whom an officer could consult oh such matters. It was difficult for professional officers to realise that Volunteer officers could be ignorant of all the finer points of routine concerning the service. The prosecution had based their case upon the point that Knyvett was warned of impropriety and insubordination. Had the arrangements Knyvett thought were 'in progress been carried into effect he would not, in face of a contrary report, have insisted on sending the letter. Ex-Captain Knyvett said he was captain in ■'No. 1 Auckland Garrison Artillery in November, 1909. In October, 1909, certain trouble took place in connection with a trip which he and his company 1 made to Wellington. He considered he had a grievance against the Chief of the General Staff. He admitted writing the letter complained of. He wrote it while in the presence of his senior subaltern (Captain Greener). They went to Colcmel Paterson's office, and showed him the letter. Colonel Paterson said it wasj " pretty hot," but he would forward it oh. Colonel Paterson was officer in charge of the Garrison Artillery Division. He told witness that if he were not sure of his facts he would get into trouble. Witness assured Colonel Paterson that he was sure of his facts. Captain Greener was present. An inquiry had been held into his leaving Auckland with his company without leave. Colonel Wolfe had informed witness that he was quite satisfied that witness had got leave to travel. Colonel Wolfe had read the letter and told him he would get into serious trouble if he was not sure of his facts. On November 12 Colonel Wolfe had telephoned to him asking if witness remembered being warned as to the facts of his letter,, and witness replied in the affirmative. He was told that the letter would be forwarded to Colonel Tuson with a covering letter tsking for advice. Colonel Wolfe said that Colonel' Tuson was a personal friend, and would be sure to return the original letter without opening it, as required by Colonel Wolfe. Colonel Wolfe informed witness that he would let him know as soon as he received a reply from Colonel Tuson. He was positive on this point. Witness waited to hear the reply. He thought Colonel Wolfe wanted it on record that witness had been warned as to the letter, and that Colonel Wolfe wanted him to sign a document to that effect. He signed the document. He had every intention of abiding by Colonel Tuson's opinion. Three other senior officers of Auckland had seen the letter, and none of them told him that it was improper or insubordinate. Witness never personally thought the letter was impertinent or insubordinate. He had no personal animus against the officer complained of. He had promised his men that if they behaved themselves in Wellington he would make an official complaint and have the matter investigated. The published interviews under the name of the officer complained of was what rankled most in witness's mind. In commencing his cross-examination, Mr Neave said: "Do you think it pos- t sible to prefer a charge or series of charges against your superior officer without using abusive or offensive language? —Witness: The circumstances connected with the letter were such that I had to point out the article. I had to put the whole facts in. Mr Neave: Would, it not have been possible for you to have stated simply the substance of the charge ?—Witness : I wanted the thing to "be investigated.

Mr Neave : Could you not have done it without using offensive language?—l just dictated the letter to my shorthand writer just as the facts came to my mind because 1 wanted an investigation. I wanted to put in all the facts.- I thought at the time that when it got to Colonel Robin he would ask me for an explanation. He had already refused me a personal explanation. Mr Neave: Do you think it a proper term to say of a superior officer that he

is guilty of unexampled officialdom ?—Witness : At the time I wrote the letter I thought so. Mr Neave : Do you think so now? — Witness: I will respectfully request that I do not answer that how. Mr Neave : I will not press you for an answer. In further reply, Witness said he had no other alternative than to make the charge. He was ■ sorry he had had to make it. If a junior officer of his corps had made a similar complaint concerning witness to witness's superior officer he would consider it to the prejudice of discipline. . Captain Dawson: Why?—Witness : Because such a complaint should be made through me. At 5 p.m. the court adjourned until 10 a.m. next day. May 10. When the Knyvett court-martial resumed ' to-day Captain Dawson asked to be permitted to call further evidence confirming that tendered by accused yesterday as .to hie having an interview with Colonel Paterson concerning the nature of the letter. The President said that the evidence of Captain Knyvett on this point was accepted. The evidence was given on oath. Mr Neave pointed out that he had in no way cross-examined Captain Knyvett as to his veracity. Captain Dawsan then said he was quite satisfied. He simply desired to establish beyond question that Knyvett had consulted Colonel Paterson about the lettei". Colonel Wolfe, in charge of the Auckland Battalion, was called to give evidence as to accused's character. Witness said that when he arrived in Auckland No. 1 Company was in a very bad state, and its resuscitation was almost entirely due to Captain Knyvett. There could be no doubt that prior to the unfortunate incident Captain Knyvett was one of the keenest officers under witness's command. He believed that Captain Knyvett, .when he returned to Auckland, was in an excitable state, and that there might be some slight excuse, though there could never be any excuse for insubordination, for his action.

The President of the Court said the question of whether accused had been guilty of insubordination was one for the court to decide.

The witness then altered the expression " There oould never be' any excuse for insubordination " to " there could be no excuse for writing such a letter." _ The Witness, in reply to another question, said he would not like to say whether accused was a man of brusque manner, or whether a colonial could not achieve the precise measure of regard for the fine points of discipline that an English trained officer could. Counsel put in a a letter from Colonel Paterson stating " Captain Knyvett is an exceptionally zealous and competent officer. He has at all times been most courteous to me, and the discipline of his corps was all that could be desired." Captain Dawson addressed the court at length on behalf of Knyvett. He read his long record of service in the infantry, mounted, and artillery sections of the forces and his achievements in the field in South Africa, where he was mentioned in despatches and awarded a medal for distinguished service. As to the letter, he reminded the court that Knyvett 'had shown his letter to Colonel Paterson and the latter did not express an opinion that it was insubordinate. The defence in no way wished to foist the responsibility for the letter on Colonel Paterson, who was now out of the country. At the same time, Colonel Paterson handed on the letter to Colonel Wolfe, and accused knew that Colonel Wolfe was seeking the opinion of Colonel Tuson, A. G., on the matter. Knyvett was under the impression that Colonel Tuson was to let him know. He still had it in his mind that there was time to recall. He did not wish to suggest that he was misled by the officer commanding the Auckland district; far from it. What was in his mind was this: that he would hear more about the letter from Colonel Tuson. The officer-counsel

eaid that colonials had not that nice and polished manner which English officers possessed. The respect was there, but colonials had not the same manner of showing it. In writing the letter he wanted the court to take his assurance that accused merely wanted to bring about an inquiry. He had no desire to put a slight oii the General Staff and the officer of the forces. He had now been 13 months out of the forces, and during that time he had distinctly refrained from giving any information respecting departmental or other matters to the press. At the most, officer-counsel submitted that Knyvett had been guilty of a mere error of judgment. He felt his position so keenly that he hated and loathed to meet his brother officers. Mr Neave in his reply made it clear that the charge had not been preferred because Knyvett had made a complaint. Counsel said it could not be too widely known that such was not the case, lne only requirement of the Army Act and the regulations made under it and of the Defence Act and its regulations was that, the charge was to be preferred in a respectful and moderate manner, ihe only charge against Knyvett was that ho had preferred a charge in an insubordinate and contemptuous manner. It bad been suggested that Knyvett was more or less ignorant of what was required of him. Counsel said there was no excuse for ignorance. The maintenance of discipline and the use of courteous language was one of the prime essentials of the military force. Concerning the warning issued bv Colonel Wolfe, counsel said an officer in the position of Captain Knyvett had to accept responsibility for his acts Nevertheless the court had before it Colonel Wolfe's letter to Colonel Paterson, the commander of the division, asking him to point out that the letter contamed irrelevant matter, that it was couched in language not permitted by the regulations, that it should be confined strictly to the ouestions in relation to which inquiry was asked, that it pained Colonel Wolfe to have to forward to headquarters such a letter, and, anally, that the language should be moderated before sending the communication to head, quarters. This letter was forwarded by Colonel Paterson to Knyvett, who returned it with the -following memo.: — " Noted, and regret unable to alter letter—F. B. Knyvett." This, counsel contended, showed that accused had written his letter and sent it to headquarters with a reckless disregard for the consequences. It was no answer to a charge of being " guilty of an act to the prejudice of military discipline that a' person accused under the Army Act did not intend to prejudice military discipline. The letter -written by Captain Knyvett was bristling with evidence of deliberation. It was not the tittle-tattle of a camp; it was the_ considered production of an officer m. a responsiol© position. The only question the court had to decide, now that the writing of the letter was admitted, was this: Was the letter in its terms calculated to preju dice- good order and military discipline t This closed the case. The finding will not be made known *or some time.