DEWAR “GUILTY.”

Hokitika Guardian, 7 April 1928, Page 3

DEWAR “GUILTY.”

DJSAHS.SEI) HIS SHIP. (United Press Association.—By Electric Te leg ra p li. —Copy r igl 1 1.) LONDON, April !-. The closing part of the prosecution, the cross-examination of Captain Dewar. hinged on ideas of discipline. The prosecutor said: "Von will say that the interests ol the ship will be the first consideration in future?” Captain Dewar, in reply, said that he meant that the desire to avoid scandal affecting the Admiral should he overridden by the necessity for the consideration of the interests of the Service on the ship as a whole, ir-

respective of any individual. Witness said he did not necessarily approve of Commander Daniel's general remarks in the letter, but be though)) that it represented. in expressive form, a state of affairs which he thought it extremely probable existed.

The Prosecutor: Would you. as Captain, tolerate a letter from a Lieutenant saying that lie looked forward to vindictive fault-finding from you ?

Captain Dewar said: Daniel's letter did not say that, but indicated that was the impression in the. ship, if he had put it the other way. I should have corrected it. Dewar added: 1 did not desire iL to he thought that he was engaged in a Alaehinvellian plot against Admiral Collard. lie did not intend to convey the impression that the ship was in a state of latent mutiny, or that .something terrible would happen if something were not done. The Prosecutor: I low can you describe tile incident of March sth as a recurrence of the dance incident? Captain Dewar replied: Because both were due to uneont rnlhihlc fits of temper. The Prosecutor: Did you consider sueli action tended to promote the welfare of the Fleet ? Captain Dewar: As it turned out, no; but I thought so at the time. Certainly, such action was not calculated to promote my own welfare.

The Prosecutor: Would not your hearing aboard have made a difference if you lincf adopted the policy of “Laugh, and the world laughs with, you 1”

Captain Dewar (wearily) : Tt would have made no difl’erem;®. Commander Daniel. looking pale and drawn, after repeating the evidence lie had given in his own ease, was cross-examined. He denied that he had been actuated by animosity towards Admiral Collard. but said be was sure Amiral Collaid’s conduct was detrimental to morale and discipline. The Prosecutor, questioning him regarding the wardroom conversations, quoted the dictum of Admiral /Lord St. Vincent, who was prominent in the settlement of the naval mutinies at the Nine and at Spithead.in l/9i. vi/.: “I do not dread the seamen —it is the officers’ indi-cieet and licentious conversation thus produces our ills! Captain Daniel replied: 'I hat is very appropriate I Added to give an example of the wardroom indignation, hi* salt! a senior officer remarked: “Collard might as well have been olfensive to my wife ! ’’ CHAPLAIN’S TESTIMONY. The Rev Harry Colliding. Chaplain of 11.A1.5. Royal Oak. gave evidence. He said he asked Admiral Collard to explain bis ungentlemanly action of insulting, in the presence of ladies, somel-id.v not in apposition to reply. “Admiral Collard told me,” be said, “then* were the severest penalties indictable on tin- Hag officers, bis accusers, and added : *1 will have you court-martialled !’ ” Admiral ;Kimball asked: Did lie send for the Captain ? Chaplain: He dived for the bell, but missed il. (Laughter). During the greater pari of the interview ho was out of control. 1 had the greatest difficulty in remaining in the cabin. (La lighter). Six ratings indignantly complained to me that power was be-ing-'abused. Nobody complained of the actual expression used. whii’.ll, none the less, was a technical matter. 'The term is very common in men s conversation generally. lie added j hat the officers were furious because the men hail been cruelly insulted. The Chaplain said: I hear Admiral Colla ril described so offensively. including the term “blaiiky 1,-Tt.le swine.” I was obliged to stop Hie references. Captain Dewar, of 11.A1.5. Royal Oak, was found guilty on the firstcharge. The second charge* was by the Court found to lie not proven.

Captain Dewar was dismissed from his ship, and was severely reprimand-

ADAIIRAL COLLAR P'S TURN. In the House of Commons. Sir C. Craig (member lor Antrim, l Istc-i) asked whether any. and il so what, disciplinary action would he taken regarding Admiral Collard. in connection with the incident on the Royal Oak. ... .

81. Hon. ML (’. Bridgeman (First Lord of the Admiralty) replied that Admiral Collard was ordered to strike his (lag by tin- Commender in Child in the Aleditorranean. The Admiralty had approved of this an ion* after the receipt of the minutes of the Court of Inquiry of March. 17th. The Admiralty. he said, will issue a statement on the ease viewing the proeecilim's of the (ourt Alaitial. LONDON. April 5.

The prosecution submitted ('"lhird’s behaviour was irrelvalent and the pica of justification put up by the defence 1,,,-itly admitted the offences. He added every unfounded rumour regarding incidents had been exploited and many unfair and untrue innuendos where Col la ril had a perfect right to find fault when his orders were not carried out. His method of fault finding might or might not be open to question, hut trials of notoriety might have been avoided hv more deliberate veHeotion. ’ Dewar’s certificates of service declared him to he “ a zealous efficient executive officer of excellent judgment. I who will do well in higher ranks.” | Dewar on hearing the sentence smiled.