The Rangitikei Advocate. TWO EDITIONS DAILY. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1918. DEFENCE COMMISSION.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLII, Issue 11615, 14 August 1918, Page 4

The Rangitikei Advocate. TWO EDITIONS DAILY. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1918. DEFENCE COMMISSION.

THE report of the Defence Expenditure Commission is a document whiclvon tno whole, is the most complete vindication of the Government in general and of the Defence Minister in particular, that coula possibly have been hoped for from the malevolent charges which were bandied about in Parliament by political enemies. Of course, in an inquiry of the kind the confidence and the satisfaction with which the public will receive the report is entirely conditioned by its belief in the judicial fairness of the authority to which the inquiry has been committed. That is an essential test of its value. And we believe that the great majority of the community, who knew nothing cf the personality of the Commission, and who read the daily reports furnished by T the press, were quite satisfied with the selection. The incisive character of the interrogations, the shrewdness of the comment on some of the evidence, and the absolute absence of restraint from high places patent in all the proceedings of the Commission compelled respect for its findings.

Of course, in its very nature, . it was a fault-hunting inquiry. It was there to lay bare any abuses in the way of official or Ministerial nepotism, to nose nut useless expenditure, peculation or extravagance; and Sir R. M. Anderson throughout displayed a most refreshing disrespect tor military trivialities. But this is one of the warnings with which the Commission prefaces its findings: “It must be understood that an inquiry of this kind has to do with faults and failings, and unless this is home in mind a wrong impression may be gathered from our report. Broadly, our opinion is that a great work has been well done. We shall indicate faults and shortcomings all of which, fortunately, can be easily remedied.” A splendid testimony also to the honesty of the administration of the vast war funds is contained in the following short quotation from the report: “With special satisfaction we desire to emphasize the fact that, with an expenditure of £4O, 000,000, we.have discovered no case of fraud, embezzlement,'or collusion,

which, as far as we can ascertain, is a unique record.” We believe also that a record has been made in Ministerial restraint as set out below : “It is fair to say that we have coins across no evidence whatever, although we carefully sought it, oj;

the Minister of Defence, directly or

indirectly, using the influence his high ■to grantor taia exemption for men from service. We also made di inquiry ss to what relative A connections, if any, the had In the Department. . , , , As s matter of fact, v; d came across no case of any Minister of the Crown having friends or relatives in comfortable oy lucrative positions in connection with war activities; and if there are any they must be serving in a humble capacity.”

In praise of Sir James Allen and his administration we cannot do better nor fairer, in view of the misrepreseutaion to which he has been exposed than to quote in conclusion the summing up of the whole in a few pregnant sentences: “In all essentials the Administraton has succeeded. A few instances —£40,000,000 spent and no frauds. Au army of 100,000 men excellently and fully equipped, and carried to the other end of the world. A declaration by the most responsible public man four years ago that tins could be done by New Zealand would have been described as ‘rhetoric’ —or woise. Supplies have been purchased well, and, although the actual purchasing has been done outside the Department, military offi cers have been responsible that quantities have been sufficient and not excessive. The bargain for transport vessels is the most favourable that can be learnt of anywhere. Your sick and wounded have been tended with efficient and tender care both here and abroad. At Gallipoli your hospital ships won such a name that the wounded of other Forces counted themselves most fortunate to be transported on them. Criticism will, during the war, specially rage about the Minister of Defence, and he may gather grim comfort from the knowledge that ‘censure is the tax that a man pays to tha public for being eminent.’ ”