South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1883.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3318, 20 November 1883, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1883.

The first number of the “ N.Z. Volunteer and Armed Constabulary Service Gazette ” is before us, and it must be pronounced a very creditable production. It contains a fair amount of editorial matter of a most practical character, a number of well-chosen extracts from various journals, bearing on military affairs ; information as to the different branches of the colonial service, and records of military movements at Home and abroad. It supplies, in fact, almost everything that could be expected to interest a military reader, and if it does not receive ample support it ought to do so. Its scope at present is limited, however, and we shall henceforward look for it to take a wider range. It is obvious that we shall have to look for our defences upon a citizen soldiery, and that we shall have to keep pace with the times. It might be as well therefore, if this organ of the forces were to devote some portion of its space to the discussion of technical matters. A series of papers might be contributed on various points, and discussion invited, and the “ Gazette ” might thus become an active and powerful educator of the citizen soldiers. The editor, naturally, makes the most of the defence ; and in the course of his remarks he refers with justice and well - warranted severity to the nepotism and jobbery which prevail in volunteer, as well as all other, circles in the colony. Ho contends that the Volunteers have a right to expect that the men chosen to command and instruct them, should be selected on account of their efficiency only. “We know,” he says, “ that one or two ex-military officers have been appointed within the year as adjutants and commanding officers of

districts (a curious combination, by the way) ; but wo would ask if a single appointment has been made unconnected with family or political influence? or if any selection has been made of a military expert in, or just uut of, the Imperial Army who had not friends, connections, or relations, who belong to some of the governing families in New Zealand ? Men who give tbeir services to the State, as our Volunteers have done, Lave at least a right to expect proper instruction. The volunteer officers are anxious to learn ; but are they given any opportunities of .learning? Can they do so under men, who in most instances,gained any knowledge they may possess of military matters in the colony, and some who have never had any military experience at all, beyond the district they are in?” If the “Gazette” served no other purpose than to awaken a wide-spread opposition to all sorts of favoritism in the matter of these appointments, it would deserve well of the colony. We do not agree with the Gazette equally on the subject of the powers of commanding officers. A military journal is not, of course, likely to view with favor the intervention, between an officer and bis corps, of the Civil power; and the “ Gazette ” is indignant at what he considers the defects of the new regulation in this matter. It may he pointed out, however, that it is quite in keeping with what we may designate, to use a hackneyed phrase, “ the fabric of our civilization ” —that the military power should be auxiliary to the Civil, aud that our forces should be distinctly subordinated to the ordinary law. It would never do to encourage the growth of military independence. Besides, the rules for governing a body of citizen soldiers, all of whom are men of respectability, must be altogether different from those needed to govern hirelings. Discipline must be maintained, not by the superior powers of those in command, and the infliction of military punishments for disobedience, but by mutual consent. An efficient officer of good repute will find no difficulty in commanding men of common sense, patriotism, and a desire only to defend their hearths and homes. An officer incapable of commanding should be immediately relegated to civil life ; a soldier indisposed to obey and not guided by the motives referred to above, should be got rid of at once, as an encumbrance.

We cordially.wish our contemporary success.

The public, we feel sure, will heartily endorse the action of the Cemetery Board in consenting to fence in the burial ground of the Jewish congregation, in return for their relinquishing a considerable portion of their ground to meet the requirements of the Board. The case is so clearly one of quid pro quo that the wonder is, not that the discussion upon it was a short one, but that there was any discussion at all. We are not aware of the exact arrangements which the Board purpose making in regard to the extension of the Cemetery, but it is certain that no time should be lost in completing them. The present ground is rapidly filling up, and it is not desirable to have it crowded to its utmost capacity. We are glad to avail ourselves of this opportunity to express our extreme gratification and that of the general public, at the management of the Cemetery, which, it is no flattery to say, reflects the highest credit upon the Board and their officer in charge.

The case Calvert’s trustee v. Gibson Bros., beard the other day in the District Court, should be a warning to business men generally. The whole affair arose from the inability of all parties concerned to verify their own statemements by reference to written documents. Lawyers and agents transactions are multifarious, and likely at any time to bring them into the witness box, where exactness as to amounts of money, dates of occurrences, and phraseology, is absolutely indispensable, ought surely in their own interests, to keep a daily record of allthattranspires in their offices. There was a small payment of £1 11s in this case, for example, which nobody knew anything about. One person thought he had paid it, another believed he received it, but neither party could say exactly, or produce any evidence, as to what it was paid for. It may be as well for young business men to take notice of the complications that may arise from neglect to make an entry in one’s diary or to keep a diary at all.