CAPTAIN SEDDON’S CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 6

CAPTAIN SEDDON’S CASE.

SUDDEN RESIGNATION

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE,

(From Odr Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON. October 16.

A very warm discussion sprang up in the House this afternoon upon the action of Captain Soddon in resigning from the Defence Force about six weeks after ho had returned from England, where he had been maintained for three years by the New Zealand Government for the purposes of army training. When this fact became known Mr Okoy asked a question about officers being required to sign an agreement to servo for a number of years. - Ihe Hon. J. Allen replied that such regulations did now obtain, but that at the start of the training they were not in force and some officers had been sent Home without such agreements being signed. Subsequently Mr R. Scott moved for a return giving full particulars of the money paid to Captain Soddon during his absence and also other information. The Prime Minister granted this return this afternoon, and it will be produced in due course. ALLEGATIONS OF “ PURPOSE.” Sir Joseph Ward said that it appeared to him that some members on the other side of the House were putting questions and motions on the order paper in order to create a wrong impression. The answer to Mr Okey’s question, it seemed to him, conveyed a suggestion that there was some favouritism in connection with this matter when he (Sir Jospeh) was Minister of Defence. He wanted to say that up to, and for months after, the time that Captain Seddon left New Zealand no permanent officer who had been in the Force for any length of time was ever asked to sign an agreement. The officers who had signed were Messrs White, Robertson, Barton, and Grant, who signed on for a year, because it was a condition of the:r appointment that they should do so. Neither Colonel Buuchop, nor Colonel Abbott, nor anyone else, prior to the gazetting of the new regulations, which made it obligatory to do so, had ever signed an agreement. The regulations were brought down by himself and not by the present Minister for Defence. “Has- it come to this in this country, continued the leader of the Opposition, “ that we arc going to find that a man who at one time was Prime Minister of this country is, through the members of his family, to continue to bo the subject of some form of attack for ever, because that is what seems to mo to be the case.” QUESTION OF INSPIRATION. Ho would undertake to say, added Sir Joseph, that the member who had asked for a return had not prepared the motion himself. The Prime Minister (angrily); Do you suggest that I Sir Joseph Ward: I did not refer to the hon. gentleman, and that is my opinion. Mr Scott: Your opinion is wrong. The motion was prepared by myself. The Hon. Jas. Allen was not in the House when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, but, returning soon afterwards, he replied. “ I do not know,” said the Minister, “ whether he intended to imply that I inspired those questions. If so, I give the statement a most emphatic denial.” , *, Sir. J. Ward; I don't suggest it was by you. Mr Allen: I have not inspired either the questions or the motion. The House had a right to ask whether officers were under any obligation to the dominion when they came back. Before May 5, 1911, no regulations on the subject had boon made. Sir Joseph Ward: I brought the regulations down myself. Mr Allen: Quite so. Since they wore issued most of the officers have signed; some have gone without signing an agreement, but agreements have been sent after them. It was not right that the taxpayers should pay for the training of a man without getting some service from him. MR NOSWORTHY INDIGNANT. Mr W. Nosworthy (Ashburton) said that ho know of this matter before it was mentioned by Mr Okey, and had intended to bring it up. It seemed to him absurd that officers should go Home, receive the benefits of a military training in the Old Country at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayers, and then come back and coolly resign their positions. This reflected not the slightest credit on those who did it. The Loader of the Opposition had referred to the relations of a former Prime Minister. Ho thought that this country Had been extremely good to everyone of them. “ And when wo get an illustration like this,” ho continued, “of an individual of the family receiving all the money he has had from

this country, and then coming back and treating the country as he had. treated it, it doesn’t reflect much credit on the name that has been referred to as being of such benefit to this country.”