STRETCHER-BEARER NIMOT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1739, 21 July 1917, Page 4

STRETCHER-BEARER NIMOT.

THE ARMENTIERES DESERTER. A deputation: of six wounded soldiers went to the New Zealand Observer office in Auckland on Thursday of last week and requested that the paper should ask Sir James Allen: “What wore the New' Zealand casualties the night after the desertion of Stretcher-Bearer Niraot, of (he N.Z. Army, to the Germans?” No. 10-8270, Private A. H. O’Niel, of this deputation, said (states the Observer) : “I saw Nimot go over to the German trenches on the day he left the regiment. He said he was going for souvenirs.” This deputation declared that it was a common occurrence when “nothing was doing” for soldiers to steal out for this purpose. But in Nimot's case he got to the German trenches without lire from either the British or German guns. When it was seen that he was actually going into Ihe German front line the machine-gtyis of the Ist Wellington Infantry Regiment were turned on the place where he was disappearing. They declare it to have been impossible for any soldier to have crossed into the German trenches without being shot at by the Germans unless it was a deliberately-planned move. They suggestingly add that Armentiers was at the time full of spies. During that day New Zealand troops bad been carrying cylinders of gas into their front: line trenches, and a gas attack was contemplated. They regard it as sinister that on the following day points that could not be known to German gunners wore heavily shelled —dumps, gas cylinders, stores, headquarters, and wellconcealed guns. The casualties were heavy. O’Neil says that he was led to make his declaration by the fact that fifteen of his own mates were killed as a result of the unusual German activity on the day succeeding the desertion of Stret-cher-Bearer Nuuot. Mr Vigor Brown, M.P., of Napier, asked (he Minister for Defence to withdraw his statement that Nimot was “an honourable prisoner ’of war.” Sir James Aik a, in his reply, said that a court of inquiry held in France decided (hat Nimot will be tried by court martial al the end of (lie war. Official inquiry is made in every case of prisoners of war. The Observer points out that Sir James Allen did not “withdraw his former statement that Nimot was an honourable prisoner of war,” and this point alone is the reason of the soldiers’ complaint. In short, they attribute to Nimot (he death of many of their comrades, and most emphatically hold that a man they believe to he a traitor cannot in any sense be deemed to be “honourable.” The Court of Inquiry held in France found that Nimot had deserted to the enemy, and it is therefore perfectly clear that the Court of Inquiry, consisting, of course, of officers in the held, did not regard Nimot as “ap honourable prisoner of war,” and il is impossible that Sir James Allen can think so cither. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that (he Minister for Defence did not specially stale that the New Zealand Defence Department would regard Nimot as a traitor who had deliberately descried to (he enemy, for had he done so a large number of soldiers who are vitally concerned, and who lost (heir dearest'comrades, would hiivqj’elt that Nimot could not under any circumstances escape (he penalty of his treachery. These >oldiers most naturally associate the extreme activity and accuracy of the German lire, on the day suc'r ceeding Nimot’s desertion, as the result of that desertion, and’they simply wish il to be known that in their opinion the heavy New Zealand casualties were due to Nimot.