AN OVER-OFFICERED SERVICE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1200, 14 November 1882, Page 1 (Supplement)

AN OVER-OFFICERED SERVICE.

Under the signature “Scotchman,” the following letter, containing curious statistical information, was published iu the “British Friend:”—“ln reading an account of the late Conservative meeting at the Royal Beacon Hotel, I noticed that heading the list of gentlemen present were the names of 4 admirals, 3 major-generals, 1 general, 2 colonels, 1 lieutenant-colo-nel, 6 majors, 4 captains —total, 21. What an army! What a text for the contemplative Liberal. Wo have a small Conservative meeting in the town (there were less than 200 tickets taken at the door), and behold this formidable array of rich pensioners—this little regiment of sinecurists. What does it mean ? Where is the explanation? Not far to seek. Imagine a railway company appointing a separate director for every locomotive engine it possesses, the majority of such directors doing no work, however, beyond drawing their salaries. Would not such a system be considered the very essence of madness ? But wherein would such a preposterous arrangement differ from the actually existing state of affairs in the British navy ? For here we find between 300 and 400 handsomely salaried admirals, that is more than one admiral to every ship in commission! It is the same in the army, or worse. For about 150 regiments of the line, we have over 100 generals and 150 major-generals, BOO generals in all—that is ft) than five generals to of the, line. Could Bedlam’perpctrate such’ an outrageous absurdity? But observe, it is no folly of the admirals and generals —the folly is on the part of the British Legislature and taxpayers. Besides the above there are nearly 1,300 colonels, and 2,(KM) lieutenant-colonels, and in short, nearly 14,000 superior officers, whom over 11,000 arc on half pay. Fresh demands are constantly made for more money for the army and navy, or for this nominal object, but the real destination of an enormous amount of the taxation * for the service’ is the pockets of the sine-

curists, the supernumaries, and the non-meritorious pensioners. And now comes the question as to which political party is most responsible for this condition of things—this gigantic abuse and wicked waste. My contention is that the question is answered by the fact to which 1 drew your attention at the beginning of my letter — the attendance of that little army of officers at the late Conservative meeting. These men know that the harvest of their profession is a Tory Government, when they can get practically almost anything they ask for, and this is why they arc so eager to turn out the Liberals. How a working man can be a Conservative in the face of facts like these is an enigma. ”