ARMY OFFICERS’ BLUNDER

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17236, 16 April 1930, Page 9

ARMY OFFICERS’ BLUNDER

& hsiM xiufib

M6N& Diagnosis

LONDON, March 1

In his report oil army accounts, the Ai|dtib.r;Obiieral .drays attention Jo, tivo blunders. ( which involved con-: In pile, easy 4,02 horses' an,d. mules under tfie impreSsipji..t"M they were suffering from glafidcrF jn, Aeepnd instance,.yi, drill hall, dgtiwed of by .the authorities for had later to be repurchased for E1S,0()0,; 4 . A,., ...... i. .The latter, transaction is described by, t.he auditor.. as a “serious and exbenSivb J T Iji , 19£7,, says tfib - report oil a supphieS.btttbreak of giandeys in. Egypt, 3C9 fiorses. find - ipules,, army property, and .33 owned by army officers, were destroyed.,,. A further 280, animals, aupposed to be iiifected, aiviiited aeMrncijiftn. , i . i v.. n( . ..... v , , A js.cnicit; bqiper rvmj sent out, from England tff ib.ypti^t^jle,found ,thkt tfie sifik ( nee,3 had been yyfpngiy.difighhi ed as glanders. Disciplinary Action was taken against the officers held to have been primarily responsible for the mistake. , , ” Tp compbnsatc. tfie. officers w-lio.se private horses £460 was paid. Regarding the army property the auditor adds:— “The war Office took the view that po write-pff r .\vas necessary, and there is no note of any-loss in the account, As, however, it appeared to me that, under the conditions regulating the powers of tfie Army Council in relation to losses Ti-ea?ury authority should have been obtained for a write-off, I asked for a statement of the grounds on which the above-mentioned decision was arrived ,at. I was informed in reply that.the circumstances ,of this case, together with the department’s reasons for not regarding it as a formal ‘loss’ have now been reported to t-hii Treasury., lam awaiting an expression -of their-lordships’ views on tlie matter.’’ DRILL HALL LOSS Tlie drill hall, which was for certain territorial army kilts, .was erected, in 1912 at a.cost of £6800., In 1{)21 the hall was declared unsuitable, owing to the absence of stqldes, riding school, and permanent staff quaiters, and tfie units were transferred to some barracks on which £2OOO was expended. The drill hull was sold and realised £B6OO. In 1924 it was reported that the barracks were unsuitable; and by 1927 their evacuation became imperative'. Tlie alternatives were hither to erect new premise:) altogether, or to liiitj some existing , accommodation which could be adapted for the purposes of the territorial army. .„ . , , The only, suitable promises proved to be the very hall, which .had been sold for £B6OO iii 1921. After protracted negotiations this property wsa repurchased for £13,000, this price being regarded as favorable in com--piuisbn with the alternative of new construction. Sanction to. this repurchase was only given with reluctance by the Treasury, who expressed the view that tlie decision to move in 1921 had. Jjpen taken without sufficient consideration of the futurh cost.