TERRITORIAL OFFICERS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 255, 16 July 1918, Page 7

TERRITORIAL OFFICERS

THEIR STATUS IN CAMP DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SOUGHT The Supremo Court, in Bunco, sni; yesterday t/iorning, when tho hearing of tlio .case brought In- L.ioulenant Cyril Itusw>l iMorns, asking for a declaratory judgment ns to (ho Ktnlus of Territorial officers joining the Eipeditionary Force, whs cnntimictl. On Iho bench were His Honour the <hici .Justico (Sir Hobert Stout), His .Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, and His Honour Mr. .lnstico Ilosking. .Mr. jr. Myers, with Mm Mr. T. Neavo, iipjioared for Lieutenant Morns, and Sir John Salmond, K.C., for iho Crown. I amtifl, si Territorial officer, claimed that ho was entitled to rank as it commissioned officer in tho Mow Zealand Ex.lif'dilioimry Forco on entonnsr «unp, and J'<kcd for a declaratory judgment that Inl> -Now Zealand Expeditionary Forces wised under tho provisions of tho Now /raland Expeditionary Forces Act, 1015, and Iho Military Service Act, 101G, constituted part of iho Territorial Forco established nndor tho Defence Act, 1900. For the plaintiff, Mr. Myers submitted that tin] plaintiff was a lieutenant in iho Defence. Forco prior to entering camp, ■ ./Hid as he entered camp as an officer, he feould not be compelled to serve in a rank below that of commissioned officer. .Ho was directed to proceed to camp as an officer. Sir John Salmond contended that the Defence- Forces and Expeditionary Forces '«"ere distinct branches. . There wns no connection between tho two Forces. There, wero no officers of tho Expeditionary Forces except those appointed:))? the Governor-General or the Comniander-in-Wiief under section 11 of the .Expeditionary Forces Act. The plaintiff and the others with him claimed to have been acting as officers in Trontham Camp, but they wero not appointed officers. They were posted to tho Officers' Training Camp at Trentham. They wore their uniforms as Territorial officers, they wera jmid as officers at tho discretion of the Government, but they-had no appointments in the Expeditionary Forces. Just nefore a reinforcement goes a Gazetto noiice is published, in which it is stated that "The Governor-General ■ has been pleased to appoint tho following as officers,'' etc. The final appointments of officers are not made until a day or two before a reinforcement sails, although ihoso appointed may havo been acting as .officers for some timo previously. Continuing his argument, Sir John Salmond said that with respect to section 11 'of the Expeditionary Forces Act enabling l/io Governor-General to appoint or reduce officers, Mr. Myers contended that there was no power to reduce commissioned officers to tho ranks. Ho (Sir John Salmond) was not prepared to express an opinion on that point; it was obscure, and a matter of law. The Chief Justice: Your contention is that Ihero aro two Forces, and to seenro ii position as officer in the Expeditionary Forces there must bo an appointment by the Governor-General. Sir John Salmond: That ia my point. Continuing, Sir John Salmond contended that these men wero not appointed officers. They were Territorial officers an a training camp. He then quoted (section 15 of tho Expeditionary Forces Act referring to tho disbandment of tho Expeditionary Forces, in which it was stated that officers of .tho-Expeditionary I'orces, unless they were also officers of another Force, would pass into the Reserve of Officers. Ho also referred to (section 28 of the Expeditionary Forces Act, in which a limit was imposed on the numbers of tho Territorial Forces to 20,0(10 men. Mr. Neave, in replying, dealt with the merits of the plaintiff's case. The present plaintiff was a nominal plaintiff; there were a largo number of men interested, a number of whom had volunteered in August, 1914. They naturally offered their services as officers, and thero was not room for them all. Many of them would have been glad to go in nny capacity, but they were forbidden lo enlist in any lofrer capacity. Many of them iiad been on tho waiting list of officers for a considerable time.' : And these men had had tho mortification of seeing men with no experience'appointed officers, and sent away to the front, -these men wero not placing themselves in competition with the men who were returning: to accept positions as officers although ho was bound to state that many of these returning men had not volunteered, and others had volunteered .after tho plaintiff and some of the others. Had the Territorial officers been appointed in rotation, and inexperienced men had not been sent away, there would have been no excess of officers. The basis of jus claim was section 26 of the Defence iorces Act, 1909. It was under that section that tho Main Body of the Expeditionary Forces was sent abroad. Thatbody was sent on special service abroad under the terms of that Act, and them was nothing in tho Expeditionary Force* Act which divested that body "of its status. Tho basis of the wliolo of our war-like actions was the Defence Act, 1909, which was amplified, and not destroyed or altered, by tho New Zoaland Expeditionary Forces Act, 1915. Sir John Salmond said it was not correct to say that tho Main Body was a •jwrt of the Territorial Forces, but it was drawn from the Territorials. Mr. Neave, continuing, said it was-in-

teresting to noto how tho military an Ihorities regarded tho matter. Thu un attached list of officers of the Territorisi! Forces in 1912 comprised four pases ol tho New Zealand Army List; in 1917 thai unattached list had swollen lo llw exleul of sixteen pages. h\ Mis extended lisl wero included returned men of (lit! Expedilionary Forces who were placed ou thr iicservo of Officers, ana who had nol previously served in Iho Territorial Forces. Then tho regulation gazetted ii IOUi, Volume .'), also nhmved tho connec- .. tiou between the Expeditionary Forces l 0 and tho Territorial Forces. That showed ._ that a subaltern's promotion in tho Tor- „ ritorial Forces was confirmed in the Ex,j i'wlitionary V'orc.ea. How could (his be B if Ihe Iwo Forces wero not one? The ' Expeditionary Forces wero part and pare eel of tho Territorial Forces; lie also l 3 conleiided that tho circular issued on ■j May 7, ordering these men to go inlo camp as sergeants, was entirely illegal. , No uonimission, he submitted, could Ik r ' taken away except by tho Governor-Gen-eral, who only exercised his prerogative ( [ through tho liistrtimonlality of a Rourl- !_ martini except in extreme ca*w. Tt was ._ argued that Ihcso men's Territorial comj missions would not be affected by their j. serving as non-com missioned officers. fl Sir John Salmond: It was not a coinv mission in the Territorial Forces. It ia I a commission in the "land Forces of New ' Zealand." 0 Mr. Neave said that mado his ease all the'stronger. ■ ]t meant that no Terri--1 torial officer could receive a commission B in the. Expeditionary Forces, because tho i regulations provided that no oKicer could ' hold more than ono commission at the j same time.' Mr. justice Hosking / said it might mean that an officer could hold no more Ulan one appointment as an officer. j Mr. Neave then referred to,tho stale- " ment mado by the Commandant of the j Forces (Sir Alfred Robin), who, in giving evidence before tho Defence Commission, \ said that tho Expeditionary Forces were j part of tho Territorial Aru'iy. After re- ' forcing to the practice at the front, where an officer was being reduced in j rank, Mr. Neave said the recommendation of the court-martini had to bo signed j by tho colonel of the battalion, the briga- ; dier-general, the general of 'division, and , Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. [ The Court reserved its decision.