THE MOTUIHI SCANDAL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 134, 23 February 1918, Page 6

THE MOTUIHI SCANDAL

TnE finding of the court-martial which : . tried Lieutenant-Colonel Turner for■'certain- failures in his military duty as Commandant of Motuihi Internment Camp, which led to the escape of German prisoners from the island, will surprise .loWty Tfrom the boffianine it

)- was obvious that, whoever else might i- be at fault, Colonel Turner would ie have to carry a heavy share of the n blame. _ The sentence of the Court :, —dismissal from the New Zealand ;s Defencc Forces—is the lightest that ri the offences could have carried, and e also probably the heaviest military s law would permit for simple neglect o of duty. Ever- since the public felt ■- their first indignation that theso s dangerous men should have, been ald lowed to get away with such ridiy culous ease they have' been asking to c be told who . was to blame. They knew of the failures of. Colonel y Turner, and. they will not now be o satisfied with his dismissal from the s Forces as a settlement of this unfor--0 tunate business.- AVhat -they have '' been asking is as to who was to t blame for permitting Colone'L Turi- ner to make these mistakes and to 1 continue to make them. This quesa tion, which has been raised at the two Courts lof Inquiry as well as s among the civil population, ,has . never yet been answered. Mani't festly. Colonel Turner was not dis- , charging his duties in such a; way 3 as to keep his prisoners safe, and . .it is a perfectly proper assumption, . even on the part of people who are I; not familiar with the workings of . the Defence machine, that it should j have been the business of some other t officer to know how Colonel Turner . was_ carrying out his work, and, , having found this out, to see that J things were done properly. This J- has been tacitly admitted in the Courts of Inquiry. ' It has' been ; taken for granted. But there has been conflict of evidence on what is | called "chain of responsibility." Per- ' haps the second Court of Inquiry will have something clear and defin- ; ite to say about the responsibility of other officers and the links in this "chain," but the Minister has-said that there are to be no more courtmartial proceedings'as the result of the inquiry. If this means that Colonel Turner is to be considered the sole culprit, then the public will have very good reason to dis- , agree with the Defence authorities, and to bo extremely dissatisfied. This Motjiihi affair was no ordinary acoident. The danger existing there had been causing more than one officer concern—this is in evident—but it appears that the only officers who had power to do anything to remedy matters did not do so..