LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 60, 4 December 1917, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

SOLDIERS' UNIFORMS Sir, —Further to the letter in your issue of even date by "Intolerance,' 1 would like to add a word on the same subject for the benefit of men on homo service in the city. , The rules and regulations that are in force re dress are very disheartening to the soldiers who are working in the Defence offices. Some of the clerks so employed are returned men _ who have belonged to a crack regiment where it was their pride in being known by their smart appearance and general turnout. Men on home service are not wanted to look neat; pride in one s dress is discouraged. Tile powers that be seem anxious that anyone below the rank of regimental sergeant-major should be made to wear only those clothes which will make him look as sloppy and untidy as possible. We must wear the uniform issued, which means ungainly slacks, navvies' boots, badly-fitting tunics, and any old hat they like to give us, all of which are banded out -with a generous hand so long as they do not fit. Goodness knows what strangers must think when they see lis pouring out of the office at closing time, looking as unsoldierly as possible, and feeling ashamed to have to walk along the city streets attired like a "hayseed" or a camp cook's assistant. Officers and sergeants-major who have never been away to the front are allowed to "swank" it in trench boots, spurs, "nice" riding trousers, "sweet" tunics, and crush caps, while we of a humble rank are told to wear the issue and are threatened with full military punishment if we disobey.—l am, etc., DISREPUTABLE. December 3, 1917.

Sir—The Defence Department, in its last general orders, in my liumble opinion is endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the public for some reason best known to themselves. It would be interesting to hear the true reason for refusing to allow the men to. supply themselves with smart, wellfitting regulation clothes. Our men in the past have supplied themselves with a full dress uniform without cost to the Government, because they had sufficient pride in their personal appearance to wish _ to do credit to themselves and the job they were engaged upon. This pride did not make their courage less; indeed, by the reports received from all sources these same men had so much pride iu themselves as soldiers that not only in dress, but in • duty, efficiency, smartness, cleanliness—in fact, all those attributes which go to make up the ideal soldier —were possessed by men who wish to look smart and well set up when visiting their friends or appearing in public. ' Does the' Department think that the fact of compelling the married men to look awkward and slovenly will bring contentment and delight to the men who are going forward, or that it will make ; the desire for military service stronger? Surely the powers that be must see that .a regulation of this nature is certain to breed discontentment and dissatisfaction, if not something worse. The reasons given savour very much of grandmotherly interference, and the Department would have been wise to insist upon the observance of the regulation pattern of the clothing, and not ujwn the cut and fit, which, after all, is purely a matter of individual taste, and could not affect discipline or any of those matters which arc considered important in the eyes of the military authorities. Trusting that this may assist in the very generally desired repeal of an obnoxious military regulation.— I am, etc.. - FULL DRESS.