KILTS v. TROUSERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2983, 17 May 1911, Page 9

KILTS v. TROUSERS.

A MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. (From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, May 8. On this question, which is being much debated at present, the Acting Minister for Defence (Hon. Mr Fowlds) has made the following statement. "On first arriving in the Dominion," he said, " General Godley intimated that for the present there would be no objection on the part of the military authorities to the kilt being worn on private company parades and in full dress by those men who had already got them, or for whom they had been ordered, pending the consideration of the general question of full dress for the whole army. This question has not yet been considered, nor will it be until the whole force has first been clothed in its working service uniform, and in the meantime the above decision, holds gocd. We are anxious to do anything we can to preserve the identity and individuality and esprit de corps of all units which were in ■ existence before the new scheme came into force, but there are very great difficulties concerning the question of full dress which will have to be faced When it comes to be considered—difficulties which have to be considered from the point of view of the whole army, and not from the pcint of view of individual companies. It is not a question of wearing or not wearing the kilt. Everyone would be glad to see kilted battalions in the New Zealand army, and the General has been already considering the possibility of starting one. One of the difficulties as regards the kilt as it is now worn is that in every other army in the world, without exception, all companies in a battalion are, and should De, dressed alike, and we are naturally anxious that the New Zealand army should not be held up to ridicule by the rest of the world because our battalions on a full dress parade present a motley appearance. There are other . difficulties, such as the desirability of allowing individuals under a system of universal training to be put to the expense of purchasing a uniform which is so very much more expensive than that which will be provided by the State; also the difficulty of the transfer of officers, non-commis-sioned officers, and men from one company to another of the battalion. Under the new system the organisation will be a battalion one, and promotions will be made on the battalion rolls and not by companies, except in the case of outlying companies in country districts, where it will not be possible to do otherwise. Transfers from one company to another will, therefore, be frequent, and it is manifestly impossible to expect any individual to provide himself with two kinds of uniform in one battalion. This is always supposing that in the future any full dress at all is allowed. This is entirely a question of money, and glad though we should all be to see full dress and kilted battalions, it remains to be seen in the future, after the army has got its working dress, whether it will be possible to have it or not. In the meantime, if the people who have started this agitation would endeavour to appreciate the difficulties with which we are faced, and would devote their energies to helping us to overcome them instead of embarrassing us at the most critical pericd of the inception of the new scheme, we should be sincerely gratified. I cannot think that they realise how much unnecessary work is thrown upon the Defence Department by their rushing into print and holding public meetings about a question on which they would ask at headquarters, and on which we should be very glad to have their views and help when the time for considering comes. In the meantime there is nothing to prevent the companies which have Highland uniforms from wearing them on their company parades in full dress. Tbre is not the slightest necessity for them to leave any kilts lying on the wharves, and I hope in the future that we may be able to devise some satisfactory scheme by which the kilt can be retained in the New Zealand army."